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.

 

Cupcake?? Dont use my terms of endearment against me, boo!  LMAO!

 

I'm not assuming you said it didn't.  I'm saying, I believe, it's more rampant and obvious than you do.

 

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. 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.

 

Thats because moose lips wants to be "seen" in tribeca and has half his head up someone elses @ss.

From Amazon, a good quote from the book on the phenomenon:

 

"…most whites are not drawn to a place explicitly because it teems with other white people. Rather, the place's very whiteness implies other perceived qualities. Americans associate a homogenous white neighborhood with higher property values, friendliness, orderliness, hospitability, cleanliness, safety and comfort. These seemingly race-neutral qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class in many whites' minds. Race is used as a proxy for those neighborhood traits. And if a neighborhood is known to have those traits, many whites presume - without giving it a thought - that the neighborhood will be majority white…."

 

 

This reminds me of that Modern Mayberries article that appeared in Cincinnati Magazine a few years ago.  The article identified various small towns in the area for their similarity to the fictional Mayberry from the old Andy Griffith Show, embodying the qualities enumerated above:  ” friendliness, orderliness, hospitability, cleanliness, safety and comfort”…in other words, an imagined small town USA.

 

In a way Pleasantville did the same, but ironically, and with the puns on “black/white” and “the coloreds”.

 

One can see the search for Whitopia over at City-Data.  I see this on the Kentucky forum where people are looking to leave California or some such place for the Bluegrass State.  These folks are running from crime, illegal immigrants, taxes, “the liberals”, etc.  Usually not race.  But they are looking at Kentucky as a refuge or “anti-California”.

 

Over at Stormfront they are more direct.  The “Pioneer Little Europe” forum at Stormfront has folks looking for whitopia because it is overwhelmingly white, as place for them to move to and circle the wagons against the tide of multiculturalism.  “Little Europe” because the white people came from Europe, the white continent, so these places are like little Europes, islands in the multi-culti sea of the USA.

 

A few years ago I did a search on the 2000 census to see if there were any potential Little Europes in the Dayton area, places that are very white.  Turns out there were  Some parts of western Montgomery County are 98%-99% white.  Same with Auglaize County.  I’d bet there are some rural areas in West Central Ohio that are 100% white. 

 

So we have a potential whitopia right here in west central Ohio.  We could probably develop a set of maps for the state showing the geography of Buckeye Whitopias

 

^Wow, you do get around on the web- from this site to Stormfront.

 

Thanks for citing an actual part of the book.  The problem with his assertion is that paragraph is that a place like St. George probably is a much nicer place along many of those race-neutral metrics, so I don't know how he can say with such confidence that the residents only perceive it as such because of its racial demographics.

 

EDIT: Actually, I totally agree that many people do stereotype neighborhoods like that, and I think it's an interesting phenomenon [i'm sure some people assume Lakewood has less crime than Shaker Hts, for example], but I think using these 100% white areas as your testing ground is a totally distracting gimmick.  And as several people have more or less stated, there is no monolithic "white" motivation for moving to these places- different people move for many different reasons.

 

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.

 

Some other Central Harlem fun facts:  More than 80% of its rental units are either subsidized (mostly NYCHA public housing) or are rent stabilized.  As a result, the median rent in Central Harlem in 2008 was....$662 (per 2008 American Community Survey).  Still, some longtime residents are surely being priced out.  Many, many more left in the 1970s and 1980s because it was a terrible place to live then by conventional measures (crime, drugs, school quality).  All to say, the idea that increasing market rents in the last 10 years is responsible for massive and unstoppable demographic change is...unconvincing.

 

Serious question for MTS: to the extent you worry about Harlem gentrifying, do you feel complicit?  Do you feel that because you are part Black you're presence in Harlem is less threatening to its cultural legacy.  This is not a "gotcha" question or me trying to make a point, I am honestly curious.

I think he is saying whitness is a proxy for the race-neutral metrics . 

 

 

 

 

 

Some other Central Harlem fun facts:  More than 80% of its rental units are either subsidized (mostly NYCHA public housing) or are rent stabilized.  As a result, the median rent in Central Harlem in 2008 was....$662 (per 2008 American Community Survey).  Still, some longtime residents are surely being priced out.  Many, many more left in the 1970s and 1980s because it was a terrible place to live then by conventional measures (crime, drugs, school quality).  But the idea that increasing market rents in the last 10 years is responsible for massive and unstoppable demographic change is...unconvincing.

 

Serious question for MTS: to the extent you worry about Harlem gentrifying, do you feel complicit?  Do you feel that because you are part Black you're presence in Harlem is less threatening to its cultural legacy.  This is not a "gotcha" question or me trying to make a point, I am honestly curious.

 

Where did you get those numbers?

 

Personally, since I'm not a NY resident, I really don't give a rats ass.  I only care about my investment and it's value.  I want mo money, mo money, mo money!

I think he is saying whitness is a proxy for the race-neutral metrics .

 

 

^He certainly does say that, you're right. And he's probably right lots of people do rely on that proxy to some extent, and because of the race/class connection, probably with the race-neutral results they're looking for. 

 

The nexus between race and income in the use of this proxy is particularly interesting.  One could imagine that in upper middle class areas, prospective residents can rely on class as their proxy, because housing prices alone will keep out those who could detract from the sought after race-neutral characteristics.  So even though an area has a sizable non-white population, it remains sought after by buyers of all races (Solon, outside Cleveland comes to mind).  In working class areas, however, white buyers might look more at race if they perceive cultural differences between themselves and non-white residents of the similar class.

 

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??

 

 

Personally, while working or riding my bike in black neighborhoods I've been told many times that I and people like me didn't belong there, or had comments/slurs made at me.  I even had a little girl yell out "f-ing white people" as I rode through Glenville on my bike once, for no good reason!  Generally speaking, people suck, many because they are racist.  That isn't limited to one group or the other.

 

How is "The Real World" a black/latin/asian show?  I'm no fan of the show, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the show was often pilloried for being based around a contrived multiracial cast.  Also, what shows are depicting minorities in a bad light, and who is the writer/director/producer of those shows?

The nexus between race and income in the use of this proxy is particularly interesting.  One could imagine that in upper middle class areas, prospective residents can rely on class as their proxy, because housing prices alone will keep out those who could detract from the sought after race-neutral characteristics.  So even though an area has a sizable non-white population, it remains sought after by buyers of all races (Solon, outside Cleveland comes to mind).

 

This hasn't been the case in Dayton.  I think the proxy works the other way here.  Black= the negative of the positive white attributes in my excerpt.  This is the case with Trotwood.  As you or others may recall I posted a long series of threads on Trotwood last year or the year before.

 

As part of this I was all around Trotwood exploring the place.  What I saw was generic suburbia in most cases.  A place that looked a lot like the lower middle classs and middle class parts of Kettering in the central and western parts, west of Denlinger (the residential areas, not the Salem cooridor or business parts), in terms of housing stock.  Not as solidly built out.

 

The point is Trotwood has a bad reputation.  Don't move to Trotwood.  Trotwood is "ghetto".  This is among whites.  But it is equivilant to an average white suburb, and I know the people who live there are not ghetto because I worked with some of them.  Yet race becomes a proxy for "bad", negative traits, but this is expressed in euphemism or code.

From Amazon, a good quote from the book on the phenomenon:

 

"…most whites are not drawn to a place explicitly because it teems with other white people. Rather, the place's very whiteness implies other perceived qualities. Americans associate a homogenous white neighborhood with higher property values, friendliness, orderliness, hospitability, cleanliness, safety and comfort."

 

 

This is pretty much what I eluded to earlier.  "White" is not a race, per se, but more of a culture that exudes these traits.   

 

Assimilating isn't about race; it's about finding a common denominator among different cultures to allow people to live with each other.  Irish people have a different culture than Italians, but they both have these traits.

 

Look at pro sports where most of the players come from an urban inner-city culture.  Gilbert Arenas brings guns on a plane and in the arena as "a joke".  Mike Vick breeds dogs to kill each other.  Plaxico Burris brings a loaded gun into a night club.  Jason Williams shoots his limo driver.  The list goes on and on.  And each time something like this happens, you have fellow players defending them or the player themself feigning ignorance, as if they didn't know it was wrong.  "That's how I was raised".

 

And there in lies the problem.  There is an urban culture that is not condusive to assimilating to anything.  No other group of people can co-exist with that urban culture.  And unfortunately, most of the people that exude that urban culture are black.  It's sad b/c the people living that urban culture give the rest of their race a bad name...then ignorant people from outside that race project that on everyone...and the cycle just continues.

 

...Over at Stormfront they are more direct.  The “Pioneer Little Europe” forum at Stormfront has folks looking for whitopia because it is overwhelmingly white, as place for them to move to and circle the wagons against the tide of multiculturalism.   “Little Europe” because the white people came from Europe, the white continent, so these places are like little Europes, islands in the multi-culti sea of the USA.

 

I'd love to see how well a typical American skinhead would do should we drop his/her ass in the middle of Europe tomorrow.

 

Heck, can't we inspire a "Back To Europe" movement for these people and be done with them?

The nexus between race and income in the use of this proxy is particularly interesting.  One could imagine that in upper middle class areas, prospective residents can rely on class as their proxy, because housing prices alone will keep out those who could detract from the sought after race-neutral characteristics.  So even though an area has a sizable non-white population, it remains sought after by buyers of all races (Solon, outside Cleveland comes to mind).

 

This hasn't been the case in Dayton.  I think the proxy works the other way here.  Black= the negative of the positive white attributes in my excerpt.  This is the case with Trotwood.  As you or others may recall I posted a long series of threads on Trotwood last year or the year before.

 

As part of this I was all around Trotwood exploring the place.  What I saw was generic suburbia in most cases.  A place that looked a lot like the lower middle classs and middle class parts of Kettering in the central and western parts, west of Denlinger (the residential areas, not the Salem cooridor or business parts), in terms of housing stock.  Not as solidly built out.

 

The point is Trotwood has a bad reputation.  Don't move to Trotwood.  Trotwood is "ghetto".  This is among whites.  But it is equivilant to an average white suburb, and I know the people who live there are not ghetto because I worked with some of them.  Yet race becomes a proxy for "bad", negative traits, but this is expressed in euphemism or code.

 

I can relate to this growing up in Solon.  There were subdivisions with more black people than others and they had that reputation among white people.  But there were also subdivisions that were more Jewish than others, more Asian than others, or more Indian than others...but none of those subdivisions had the same reputation as the black ones.

 

The other side of that though is white people aren't watching the news seeing Jewish people executing people in a park downtown, or Indians getting into gang fights, or Asian people enticing women back to their place with malt liquer then raping and killing them.

Why do I have a feeling this thread is going to end up locked?

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.

 

Cupcake?? Dont use my terms of endearment against me, boo!  LMAO!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VYBek1aoUc&feature=fvw

...Over at Stormfront they are more direct. The “Pioneer Little Europe” forum at Stormfront has folks looking for whitopia because it is overwhelmingly white, as place for them to move to and circle the wagons against the tide of multiculturalism. “Little Europe” because the white people came from Europe, the white continent, so these places are like little Europes, islands in the multi-culti sea of the USA.

 

I'd love to see how well a typical American skinhead would do should we drop his/her ass in the middle of Europe tomorrow.

 

Heck, can't we inspire a "Back To Europe" movement for these people and be done with them?

 

They'd probably be pretty PO'd when they found out that black and brown people live there too.

shs96... none of the other ethnicities you mention were legally livestock in this country, not ever.  Absolutely unfair.  You're comparing apples to asteroids.  Does that distinction exsuse any particular behavior?  I suppose not.  But it provides a unique context that demands consideration.  Speaking of "consideration," I can think of no other context in this society (prior to the recent bailouts) in which a debt so substantial was expected by anyone to be written off.  That simply isn't what we do around here... wealth travels across multiple successive generations, and so does debt.  Except in this case.  In this case, and in no other case in our society, people are supposed to accept "yeah we were doing that to you, but we stopped, so that makes everything OK."  Try that in criminal court.  I did it but then I stopped, so I don't owe anybody anything.  My point is you can't expect people to follow specified standards when they've been conveninently exempted from every beneficial standard we have.  How many generations do you think it will take to smooth things over from Jim Crow, from local segregation, let alone from what happened before that?  My guess: several.  It took centuries of bullcrap to get to this point.       

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.

 

Cupcake?? Dont use my terms of endearment against me, boo!  LMAO!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VYBek1aoUc&feature=fvw

 

People watch this stuff?  Totally disgusting behavior on both parts.  Reality tv brings out the worst in people. 

Well, she is from Shaker Square...like a certain forumer...

The nexus between race and income in the use of this proxy is particularly interesting. One could imagine that in upper middle class areas, prospective residents can rely on class as their proxy, because housing prices alone will keep out those who could detract from the sought after race-neutral characteristics. So even though an area has a sizable non-white population, it remains sought after by buyers of all races (Solon, outside Cleveland comes to mind).

 

This hasn't been the case in Dayton. I think the proxy works the other way here. Black= the negative of the positive white attributes in my excerpt. This is the case with Trotwood. As you or others may recall I posted a long series of threads on Trotwood last year or the year before.

 

As part of this I was all around Trotwood exploring the place. What I saw was generic suburbia in most cases. A place that looked a lot like the lower middle classs and middle class parts of Kettering in the central and western parts, west of Denlinger (the residential areas, not the Salem cooridor or business parts), in terms of housing stock. Not as solidly built out.

 

The point is Trotwood has a bad reputation. Don't move to Trotwood. Trotwood is "ghetto". This is among whites. But it is equivilant to an average white suburb, and I know the people who live there are not ghetto because I worked with some of them. Yet race becomes a proxy for "bad", negative traits, but this is expressed in euphemism or code.

 

I can relate to this growing up in Solon. There were subdivisions with more black people than others and they had that reputation among white people. But there were also subdivisions that were more Jewish than others, more Asian than others, or more Indian than others...but none of those subdivisions had the same reputation as the black ones.

 

The other side of that though is white people aren't watching the news seeing Jewish people executing people in a park downtown, or Indians getting into gang fights, or Asian people enticing women back to their place with malt liquer then raping and killing them.

 

I don't know if you are trying to justify racism, explain it, or claim it doesn't exist, but that prejudices based only on actual data (such as crime data). Either way, I think that you are getting right to the heart of racism, whether you mean to or not.

 

For various reasons we could argue all day about, I think we can all agree that the fact is that there is a higher crime rate amongst African Americans than Caucasians. Even so, amongst the African American race, the criminals still make up a small minority of the population. But people will judge individuals they don't know based on their skin color due to the statistical difference in crime between the races. Call it statistics. Call it prejudice. Call it what you want. It may be rational, or a protective instinct, or fear, but whatever the reasons are people do it (and most if not all people do to some extent) the fact is that it has real effects on the people being judged, and truly is not fair to the many good people. Some can ignore it, some can overcome it, but the effects are real, and on the whole, many people will be negatively affected.

 

I think that people naturally make these judgements based on a multitude of factors. When a new neighbor moves in, you want to know if he is going to be a nuissance or "bring the block down". When you walk down a dark, lonely street, you have to judge whether or not to keep your guard, cross the street, turn and run, or just continue because you think the other person is "safe". Race is not the only factor in these decisions. But, expecially for white people, race is a BIG factor. And race is the factor which causes the most controversy, because it is one that people cannot control. People may also be judged because of the way they dress, foul language, cleanliness, weight, sexual orientation, gender, income level, education, etc., and whether these judgements are fair or accurate, at least the traits being judged may be controlled or changed. However, a black man was born a black man and will always be a black man, whether he is a criminal or a philanthropist, and to many people the black skin will be the first thing they see and have an effect on their opinions about that person until they really get to know the individual (which often times doesn't happen). And I believe black people have had a harder time overcoming this hurdle than other historical forms of ethnic discrimination in part because it is easier to instantly identify someone as black or white than Irish or German, not because black people inherently have less in common with white people than Irish Catholic immigrants had in common with rich European-American WASPs a hundred years ago.

 

On the whole, I can understand why people make these judgements, and whether you deem them right or wrong, rational or irrational, fighting against them with both awareness and diversity and also affecting the base reasons for those judgements is probably the most effective way of combating and hopefully eventually eliminating racism in the future. I know this is easier said than done, but I hope that we head down this path.

 

I don't know if you are trying to justify racism, explain it, or claim it doesn't exist, but that prejudices based only on actual data (such as crime data).  Either way, I think that you are getting right to the heart of racism, whether you mean to or not.

 

For various reasons we could argue all day about, I think we can all agree that the fact is that there is a higher crime rate amongst African Americans than Caucasians.  Even so, amongst the African American race, the criminals still make up a small minority of the population.  But people will judge individuals they don't know based on their skin color due to the statistical difference in crime between the races.  Call it statistics.  Call it prejudice.  Call it what you want.  It may be rational, or a protective instinct, or fear, but whatever the reasons are people do it (and most if not all people do to some extent) the fact is that it has real effects on the people being judged, and truly is not fair to the many good people.  Some can ignore it, some can overcome it, but the effects are real, and on the whole, many people will be negatively affected.

 

I think that people naturally make these judgements based on a multitude of factors.  When a new neighbor moves in, you want to know if he is going to be a nuissance or "bring the block down".  When you walk down a dark, lonely street, you have to judge whether or not to keep your guard, cross the street, turn and run, or just continue because you think the other person is "safe".  Race is not the only factor in these decisions.  But, expecially for white people, race is a BIG factor.  And race is the factor which causes the most controversy, because it is one that people cannot control.  People may also be judged because of the way they dress, foul language, cleanliness, weight, sexual orientation, gender, income level, education, etc., and whether these judgements are fair or accurate, at least the traits being judged may be controlled or changed.  However, a black man was born a black man and will always be a black man, whether he is a criminal or a philanthropist, and to many people the black skin will be the first thing they see and have an effect on their opinions about that person until they really get to know the individual (which often times doesn't happen).  And I believe black people have had a harder time overcoming this hurdle than other historical forms of ethnic discrimination in part because it is easier to instantly identify someone as black or white than Irish or German, not because black people inherently have less in common with white people than Irish Catholic immigrants had in common with rich European-American WASPs a hundred years ago.

 

On the whole, I can understand why people make these judgements, and whether you deem them right or wrong, rational or irrational, fighting against them with both awareness and diversity and also affecting the base reasons for those judgements is probably the most effective way of combating and hopefully eventually eliminating racism in the future.  I know this is easier said than done, but I hope that we head down this path.

 

I think this argument is how many of the White people who avoid Black neighborhoods justify their feelings. However, it totally ignores the historical context of that segregation. The fear of Blacks you describe did not start with black neighborhoods, it started with slavery, and in my opinion, has just transmogrified into other forms and phrases that others have stated here: "law and order", "bad neighborhood", "ghetto" - all shorthand for the media-hyped and on occasion, personally-experienced fear that many Whites have of Blacks.

 

I don't know if you are trying to justify racism, explain it, or claim it doesn't exist, but that prejudices based only on actual data (such as crime data). Either way, I think that you are getting right to the heart of racism, whether you mean to or not.

 

For various reasons we could argue all day about, I think we can all agree that the fact is that there is a higher crime rate amongst African Americans than Caucasians. Even so, amongst the African American race, the criminals still make up a small minority of the population. But people will judge individuals they don't know based on their skin color due to the statistical difference in crime between the races. Call it statistics. Call it prejudice. Call it what you want. It may be rational, or a protective instinct, or fear, but whatever the reasons are people do it (and most if not all people do to some extent) the fact is that it has real effects on the people being judged, and truly is not fair to the many good people. Some can ignore it, some can overcome it, but the effects are real, and on the whole, many people will be negatively affected.

 

I think that people naturally make these judgements based on a multitude of factors. When a new neighbor moves in, you want to know if he is going to be a nuissance or "bring the block down". When you walk down a dark, lonely street, you have to judge whether or not to keep your guard, cross the street, turn and run, or just continue because you think the other person is "safe". Race is not the only factor in these decisions. But, expecially for white people, race is a BIG factor. And race is the factor which causes the most controversy, because it is one that people cannot control. People may also be judged because of the way they dress, foul language, cleanliness, weight, sexual orientation, gender, income level, education, etc., and whether these judgements are fair or accurate, at least the traits being judged may be controlled or changed. However, a black man was born a black man and will always be a black man, whether he is a criminal or a philanthropist, and to many people the black skin will be the first thing they see and have an effect on their opinions about that person until they really get to know the individual (which often times doesn't happen). And I believe black people have had a harder time overcoming this hurdle than other historical forms of ethnic discrimination in part because it is easier to instantly identify someone as black or white than Irish or German, not because black people inherently have less in common with white people than Irish Catholic immigrants had in common with rich European-American WASPs a hundred years ago.

 

On the whole, I can understand why people make these judgements, and whether you deem them right or wrong, rational or irrational, fighting against them with both awareness and diversity and also affecting the base reasons for those judgements is probably the most effective way of combating and hopefully eventually eliminating racism in the future. I know this is easier said than done, but I hope that we head down this path.

 

I think this argument is how many of the White people who avoid Black neighborhoods justify their feelings. However, it totally ignores the historical context of that segregation. The fear of Blacks you describe did not start with black neighborhoods, it started with slavery, and in my opinion, has just transmogrified into other forms and phrases that others have stated here: "law and order", "bad neighborhood", "ghetto" - all shorthand for the media-hyped and on occasion, personally-experienced fear that many Whites have of Blacks.

 

First, let me say that I was trying to state exactly what you said. It IS how many white people justify avoiding black neighborhoods. And I don't think it's right. But it's unfortunately the reality. You have to state the reality if you want to fight against it.

 

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think there is one fear of blacks by whites (and of course not all whites fear blacks). I think it's different for each individual and the reasons can change over time. I know that even if the crime rate were exactly the same amongst all races, there would still be segregation and prejudices. However, I think you'd see them dissolve much more rapidly. Safety is a major influence in people's decisions, and I believe it is a major roadblock on the way to racial harmony as long as it can be used as an excuse for the fear. I definitely do not think that think whites and blacks are just destined to never get along. I just believe that the process is slower than other groups which have reconciled differences and histocial wrongdoings for a couple reasons: (1) the historical wrongdoings were really wrong and (2) there are more roadblocks in the way of the reconciliation than in some of those other cases. The more of these roadblocks we can tear down, the easier it will be to solve the real problem.

Hollywood really needs to remake "White Man's Burden" - the movie that starred John Travolta and flipped society as we see it.  It was such a great concept but so poorly executed.

The author's official web site has some nice slide shows: http://richbenjamin.com/slideshows.html

As an aside, I am surprised that an issue like this, which is so huge especially in urban areas, attracts such little serious discussion on a website like Urban Ohio.

Somewhat related.  I don't like spending time (i.e. vacationing, business travel) in places where slavery was legal.  I am thinking about parts of the US South East, some of the Carribean islands versus the U.S. South West, Mexico, Polynesian islands, Philippines.  I can't put my finger on it but even to this day there is something in the air about these former slave holds that makes me uncomfortable.  Maybe because the locals have a chip on their shoulder? Maybe something more transcendental? Reverberations of past evil? Any opinions?

ROFL at being racist against your own race. Makes me think of clayton bigsby.

anyway

here is a good read

http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/chapter_7.htm

Somewhat related. I don't like spending time (i.e. vacationing, business travel) in places where slavery was legal. I am thinking about parts of the US South East, some of the Carribean islands versus the U.S. South West, Mexico, Polynesian islands, Philippines. I can't put my finger on it but even to this day there is something in the air about these former slave holds that makes me uncomfortable. Maybe because the locals have a chip on their shoulder? Maybe something more transcendental? Reverberations of past evil? Any opinions?

 

You won't see the racism northerners tend to expect down south if you are just visiting the bigger cities.  It is still there for sure... just not to the extent us northerners assume.  Florida is a good example.  Go anywhere on the coasts and you won't know you are in the south aside from the weather.  But if you travel through swampland or the panhandle, you might be convinced the south will rise again!... and you might even hear that phrase used or stuck to the back of a 1979 ford pickup.

An interview with the author in the social-democratic magazine In These Times:

 

Road Tripping Through Whitopia

 

What lessons do you want people to take away from your book?

 

Many whites may say, “I don’t hate minorities.” Or, “I voted for Obama.” But that’s beside the point.

 

Throughout the 20th century, racial discrimination was deliberate and intentional. Today, racial segregation and division result from policies and institutions that are no longer explicitly designed to discriminate. Yet the effects are practically the same.

 

Structural racism endures in the absence of prejudice or ill will. On my journey, examples of structural racism surfaced over and over. That’s a key lesson I hope white people take from the book—how terrible outcomes result without evil intentions.

 

As for racial minorities, we need to get our acts together. Where we’re succeeding, “Bravo.” Where we’re falling short, “The jig is up.” Some of our shortcomings are becoming increasingly indefensible. As Obama says, “In private—around kitchen tables, in barbershops and after church—black folks can often be heard bemoaning the eroding work ethic, inadequate parenting and declining sexual mores” in inner-cities.

 

So, white folks are not exactly crazy. There are some evident urban problems any reasonable person may want to flee.

 

More at the link.

 

The other side of that though is white people aren't watching the news seeing Jewish people executing people in a park downtown, or Indians getting into gang fights, or Asian people enticing women back to their place with malt liquor then raping and killing them.

 

Racial minorities have a higher crime rate.  This is a statistical fact.  One can see this in the FBI uniform crime reports.  The FBI has online a uniform crime report time series for the 1990s for the various crime categories with breakouts by race, and the minority rate is in nearly all cases higher than the white rate.  The census has a time series for homicide going back to 1980 (1980 to 2005) and again the rate is higher for racial minorities than whites.  Again, statistical fact.

 

 

The average white person doesn’t know this.  What he sees on the news or in the paper are the mug shots of black and brown faces, or the faces of the black and brown victims.  This is because the media focuses on the dramatic, human-interest crimes, the murders, the home invasions, the rapes, the more lurid the better, because lurid sells.  And since the pool of perps is higher with minorities it’s more likely you’ll see minority crime in the media.  For example over 60% of the homicides in 2008 and 2009 in Dayton were committed by blacks, so you are going to see violent crime having a black face just because of the rates.

 

Add to that certain pop culture things, like the gangsta rap thing that was big a few years ago, and certain negative stereotypes are formed about minorities.  But these stereotypes have basis in fact, even though they are unfair because they are, after all, stereotypes. 

 

This really has serious implications.  An example again from Dayton:  In 2007 the city did a survey of residents (not suburbanites) and asked a question if people felt safe or unsafe downtown.

 

For daytime, 16.9% of blacks felt unsafe, while 26.7% of whites felt unsafe, a 9.8% difference.  For downtown and night, 37% of blacks felt unsafe and a big 55.4% of whites did, a difference of 18.4%.

 

I contend these differences are due to whites seeing large concentrations of blacks downtown or more blacks on the street than whites, hence they think “”black= crime risk= unsafe”.  Even if the police stats say downtown is actually the safest part of Dayton. 

 

Think about the implications of this perception given that there is an effort to revive downtown in various ways.  These numbers are only for city residents, who one would assume would know better.  One can speculate the percentages are even worse for suburbanites who might have very limited contact with racial minorities.

 

And Benjamin acknowledges that segregation is a problem, in this interview in Time:

 

What is the danger Whitopias pose to America as a whole?

 

You can call me old-fashioned, but I'm an integrationist. A democracy can't function at its optimum unless all members are integrated as full members.

 

A community full of like-minded people tends to enforce their own view of the world and close off opposing viewpoints. You can go to parties in New York City where the liberal smugness is intolerable because they're only hearing liberal viewpoints. On the Whitopian conservative side, it's spinning out of control. Look at the tea-bagger movement, where people are concerned their taxes are going to be wasted on minorities and illegal immigrants. Same with the movement that says [President] Obama is not a citizen.

 

source

 

Or, this is another way of describing a phenomena noted in another book:  The Big Sort

 

Benjamin liking integration is not an uncommon POV with some blacks.  If  one looks at actual surveys of whites and blacks, blacks prefer to live in integrated communities at higher rates than whites, giving the lie to the rationalization that we all want to be with people mostly like ourselves.  And integration allows you to check your negative stereotypes with reality, with real live minorities as co-workers or neighbors.

 

Anyway, any good Buckeye Whitopias out there?

 

I think Benjamin’s; criteria was 95% & up white and a certain population growth rate.

 

As an aside, I am surprised that an issue like this which is so huge especially in urban areas, attracts such little serious discussion on a website like Urban Ohio.

 

Considering that the conversation usually devolves into a fight and goes nowhere I don't see that as surprising.

As an aside, I am surprised that an issue like this which is so huge especially in urban areas, attracts such little serious discussion on a website like Urban Ohio.

 

Considering that the conversation usually devolves into a fight and goes nowhere I don't see that as surprising.

 

I actually think most of the people who have discussed it in this thread have done a pretty good job at maintaining a rational discussion.  This sure has been a more civil thread than the political ones.

Found the post I was looking for. I posted this in the thread about AG Eric Holder referring to America as a "nation of cowards when it comes to discussing race". It went over well the first time I posted it so here it is again, my take (not 100% within topic context but close enough.)

 

The problem is that the country has yet to find that fine balance between complete assimilation and retaining ethnic heritage. Total assimilation would mean that we would only call our selves "Americans" (no hyphenated subgroups) and predominantly practice the same cultural norms as is traditionally done in European cultures. A total retaining of ethnic heritage would revert the country back to the days of de facto segregation.

 

We all want to be united but at the same time we all love the nostalgia of neighborhoods like "Little Italy". We take pride in being diverse however we are all mostly proud of who we are and where we come from ethnically, religiously, and geographically. By nature these ideals are conflicting. Human nature draws us towards familiarity while our superegos, if you will, yearn for integration.

 

This is really the epic struggle we face in America. It manifests itself in all sorts of different ways and it is not limited to race. Until cooler heads prevail on both sides and an open, honest, fearless dialogue is allowed we will continue to chase our tails on these issues.

 

You are for the most part correct, but I feel the racial divide digs deeper than the ethnic and heritage melting pot.  We do love our Little Italy's and Sokolowski's.  But we don't love them because only Italian people live in Little Italy, or because only Polish people eat at Sokolowski's.  We love these places because they offer a diverse array of experiences.  I believe the population of Little Italy is more Asian than Italian now, and surely non-Polish people are regularly seen at Sokolowski's.

 

I believe you are correct about an epic struggle we face in America, but I think it is something more than just a difficulty in moving from a salad bowl to a melting pot.

 

The best example I can think of that exemplifies why the problem is so difficult has to do with affirmative action.  In the simplest form, it seems like affirmative action would make sense.  I would expect someone who took something from me to give it back or pay me for it.  However, the problem is the original perpetrators (those involved in the slave trade) have been dead for generations.  So white people today do not feel responsible for what was done a long time ago.  Many white people came to the United States well after slavery ended or are not related to any former slave owners.  However, that doesn't diminish the fact that the actions of those people long ago still have real and terrible effects on a large group of people today.  But who do you punish and how?  You can't take money from the dead slave owners.  Do you identify all of their descendants?  But then again, over the past 150+ years, many of them may have had many other factors lead to why they do or do not have money today (undoubtedly the descendants of some former slave owners are not wealthy today), so how do you identify exactly who and what they have gained today?  And how do you identify who to give it to?  Some descendants of former slaves are likely well off, while many are still feeling the effects of generation after generation being stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty.  Some African-Americans not even related to former slaves may have been effected by racism stemming from the effects of this poverty over the years.  Some may have just become disillusioned.  In both races, there are lazy people, good people, hard workers, bad people, and everything in between.  Some people may have had a stroke of luck or a series of fortunate events which wiped out the effects of long ago.  Many haven't.  So again, there are surely no easy solutions to deal with what happened long ago.

 

Obviously, many people want to deal with the situation as best as possible going forward, and I think that's great and may end up being the only solution.  But it's hard to tell people who have only known a heritage of poverty dating back almost 200 years to "just suck it up and move on, we promise we'll treat you nicer".

 

I definitely don't pretend to have all the answers, and I don't expect anyone else to.  I just think it's a healthy subject to discuss because things sure aren't going to get any better if we ignore the problems.

I'm not saying we ignore the problem. But we can't have Ann Coulter debate Rev. Jesse Jackson and expect to have a sane debate about racism.

 

I understand that.  But hopefully we have enough people on here that fall somewhere in between that we can have a nice conversation.  Usually UrbanOhio is good for that.

I'm not saying we ignore the problem. But we can't have Ann Coulter debate Rev. Jesse Jackson and expect to have a sane debate about racism.

 

I understand that.  But hopefully we have enough people on here that fall somewhere in between that we can have a nice conversation.  Usually UrbanOhio is good for that.

Found the post I was looking for. I posted this in the thread about AG Eric Holder referring to America as a "nation of cowards when it comes to discussing race". It went over well the first time I posted it so here it is again, my take (not 100% within topic context but close enough.)

 

The problem is that the country has yet to find that fine balance between complete assimilation and retaining ethnic heritage. Total assimilation would mean that we would only call our selves "Americans" (no hyphenated subgroups) and predominantly practice the same cultural norms as is traditionally done in European cultures. A total retaining of ethnic heritage would revert the country back to the days of de facto segregation.

 

We all want to be united but at the same time we all love the nostalgia of neighborhoods like "Little Italy". We take pride in being diverse however we are all mostly proud of who we are and where we come from ethnically, religiously, and geographically. By nature these ideals are conflicting. Human nature draws us towards familiarity while our superegos, if you will, yearn for integration.

 

This is really the epic struggle we face in America. It manifests itself in all sorts of different ways and it is not limited to race. Until cooler heads prevail on both sides and an open, honest, fearless dialogue is allowed we will continue to chase our tails on these issues.

 

You are for the most part correct, but I feel the racial divide digs deeper than the ethnic and heritage melting pot.  We do love our Little Italy's and Sokolowski's.  But we don't love them because only Italian people live in Little Italy, or because only Polish people eat at Sokolowski's.  We love these places because they offer a diverse array of experiences.  I believe the population of Little Italy is more Asian than Italian now, and surely non-Polish people are regularly seen at Sokolowski's.

 

I believe you are correct about an epic struggle we face in America, but I think it is something more than just a difficulty in moving from a salad bowl to a melting pot.

 

The best example I can think of that exemplifies why the problem is so difficult has to do with affirmative action.  In the simplest form, it seems like affirmative action would make sense.  I would expect someone who took something from me to give it back or pay me for it.  However, the problem is the original perpetrators (those involved in the slave trade) have been dead for generations.  So white people today do not feel responsible for what was done a long time ago.  Many white people came to the United States well after slavery ended or are not related to any former slave owners.  However, that doesn't diminish the fact that the actions of those people long ago still have real and terrible effects on a large group of people today.  But who do you punish and how?  You can't take money from the dead slave owners.  Do you identify all of their descendants?  But then again, over the past 150+ years, many of them may have had many other factors lead to why they do or do not have money today (undoubtedly the descendants of some former slave owners are not wealthy today), so how do you identify exactly who and what they have gained today?  And how do you identify who to give it to?  Some descendants of former slaves are likely well off, while many are still feeling the effects of generation after generation being stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty.  Some African-Americans not even related to former slaves may have been effected by racism stemming from the effects of this poverty over the years.  Some may have just become disillusioned.  In both races, there are lazy people, good people, hard workers, bad people, and everything in between.  Some people may have had a stroke of luck or a series of fortunate events which wiped out the effects of long ago.  Many haven't.  So again, there are surely no easy solutions to deal with what happened long ago.

 

Obviously, many people want to deal with the situation as best as possible going forward, and I think that's great and may end up being the only solution.  But it's hard to tell people who have only known a heritage of poverty dating back almost 200 years to "just suck it up and move on, we promise we'll treat you nicer".

 

I definitely don't pretend to have all the answers, and I don't expect anyone else to.  I just think it's a healthy subject to discuss because things sure aren't going to get any better if we ignore the problems.

 

It might be different, though, if we remember that there were few civil rights protections for African-Americans until the mid-late 1960s, and later in some places. This is not an ancient problem, where all the perps and all the victims are dead. This is something that many people alive today experienced. Furthermore, people like me born in the 1970s were raised in an era when laws and their enforcement really began to change, but the changes in attitudes, as well as job and educational opportunities were just starting to open up. It was common into the 1980s to steer blacks into black neighborhoods and vice versa; today the average African-American family's net worth is much, much less than the average white family's because of residential segregation: even middle class blacks (and others) who own in "black neighborhoods" can't get anything for their homes compared to the suburbs where many blacks were not allowed to buy until 30-40 years ago. Even in my hometown, I recall my parents telling me about the first black family moving onto the street...ten years ago. Even minor residential integration is quite recent in most parts of the Midwest. So, it might seem like an unresolvable mishmash if we think this all happened two centuries ago, but our country could do a lot yet for the people who experienced this first hand into the 1960s, and yes, I'm talking about a massive investment in Black communities. I know it won't happen because of our newfound appreciation for "race-neutrality", but it's not favoring one group over another, or punishing one group, it's just plain justice for wrongs committed.

I don't believe I'm a racist, but Ill admit to intensely disliking some of cultural differences, not just between whites and blacks, but between whites and non-whites.  I'll give a couple of examples.

 

As I've mentioned in other threads, the 900+ unit apartment complex where I live is primarily made up of (Asian) Indians.  Two things that seem to be cultural are minor, but annoying when they happen repeatedly.  We have a large lake at our property that has a track around it where people walk, jog, etc.  The Indians always walk on the "wrong" side, (from an American perspective, using the track-as-road analogy where you walk on the right and overtake someone slower by going around them to the left.)  Thus, as you encounter people coming the other way, they are always on the same side of the path as you.  They usually walk in small groups and as they approach, refuse to move to the correct side, or otherwise move out of your way so you can share the track, so you are forced to walk out into the grass off the track to avoid running into them.  It makes you want to scream "walk on the right side!"  Similarly, whenever you come in to the complex, whatever Indian folks are out - walking, talking, getting in and out of their cars, etc, as you pass them in your vehicle, they STARE at you.  I don't get the feeling it's supposed to be threatening, but I don't know what they're staring at, and I find it very rude and weird.  But I chalk it up to a minor cultural difference and try not to let it bother me, as neither thing puts me too terribly out. I can go to the gym and walk without someone in my way, or the park.

 

Now let me give you a more irritating example.  I take the redline to/from work as many of you know.  During rush hour, the train riders are primarily white people, but also a handful of Asians, Indians and black people.  Largely, it is quiet, even when packed full like it was this morning, or there is quiet, low conversation between riders or folks on the phone.  But it has kind of a low hum/buzz like undercurrent noise.

 

I have taken the train home around lunch hour a couple of times this past month as I only worked half a day and the culture on the train is amazingly different.  It also happens to be nearly 100% African American riders.  Yesterday, for example, when I was the only white person on board in my car, the train floor was littered with garbage, several people were eating and 2 different people were listening to loud music without headphones.  Several other people were conducting extremely loud phone conversations rife with profanity.  I'm no shrinking violet, but I was glad I didn't have my baby with me to hear what they were saying so he could pick it up and say it back to me for fun.  Two different men stared at me in a way that made me very uncomfortable, and I couldn't tell whether they were staring with lecherousness or trying to be threatening, but I didn't like it, and was glad they exited before I did.  I couldn't help but think, Jesus, what is the matter with all of these people and I'm glad they're not on my train every day.  It's very unacceptable to say "these people," but you know, what is the deal?  Why is acting like a rude slob acceptable in any culture?  In some ways, I feel like the AA culture is going backwards instead of forwards.  This is the kind of behavior I dealt with in high school every day (my school was over half black).  As I walked through the hall in the morning, the black guys used to line the halls and comment to you or come up to you and hit on you, asking for your phone number.  If you ignored them, they yelled after you that you were a stuck up bitch.  If you tried to be polite and say hi, they followed you all the way to class, telling you how good you looked and what they'd like to do to you.  If you refused to give out your phone number, they'd scream "What, you don't like black people!?"  At minimum, as you walked by they would lick their lips, make noises or obscene gestures.  I mean, it was really hard not to be a racist in my home town, but I let go of all that in my college years once I met people who didn't act like that, and people of lots of other cultures.  But I swear, I just scratch my head wondering what the deal is.  Is it really all the fault of bad parenting?

 

Racial minorities have a higher crime rate.  This is a statistical fact.

 

People kill me when they say stuff like this.

Do they really believe one's race has anything to do with them being involved or victim to crime?

Is it because they are victims of 400 years of a systematically racist justice (and economic) system or do you think crime is just in they DNA?  Let us be for real.  rofl at "the crime gene". 

I don't think any african americans where involved with the decision to destroy Nagasaki.  Massacres in Jenin? nope, white folk there as well.  Oh i forgot to mention the complete destruction of native american peoples and culture.  Genocide America refuses to even honor with a holiday.  White crime against people of color.  Yeah police might arrest and judges will convict (most for nonviolent drug crime) black people more often but i assure you dangerous drugs aren't brought into america by your average working class street peddler. 

That's a great point-- statistical facts are only as good as the record keeping.  Someone has been in charge of that historically, and someone else has not, if you know what I mean.  And (broadening it slightly for illustrative purposes) I love how it can't be terrorism if you use a fighter jet to do it.  Same effect, same goal of intimidation, but different equipment used by a different faction somehow changes it morally.  One side gets a lilly white "record" while the other is typecast as barbaric.  Often in these cases, any measurable slaughter ratio tells the opposite tale. 

 

Racial minorities have a higher crime rate.  This is a statistical fact.

 

People kill me when they say stuff like this.

Do they really believe one's race has anything to do with them being involved or victim to crime?

Is it because they are victims of 400 years of a systematically racist justice (and economic) system or do you think crime is just in they DNA?  Let us be for real.  rofl at "the crime gene". 

I don't think any african americans where involved with the decision to destroy Nagasaki.  Massacres in Jenin? nope, white folk there as well.  Oh i forgot to mention the complete destruction of native american peoples and culture.  Genocide America refuses to even honor with a holiday.  White crime against people of color.  Yeah police might arrest and judges will convict (most for nonviolent drug crime) black people more often but i assure you dangerous drugs aren't brought into america by your average working class street peddler. 

 

No crime gene; just a living in a culture that facilitates crime.  It's not relfective of the race, just the culture of the community people live in.

 

I don't believe I'm a racist, but Ill admit to intensely disliking some of cultural differences, not just between whites and blacks, but between whites and non-whites.  I'll give a couple of examples.

 

As I've mentioned in other threads, the 900+ unit apartment complex where I live is primarily made up of (Asian) Indians.  Two things that seem to be cultural are minor, but annoying when they happen repeatedly.  We have a large lake at our property that has a track around it where people walk, jog, etc.  The Indians always walk on the "wrong" side, (from an American perspective, using the track-as-road analogy where you walk on the right and overtake someone slower by going around them to the left.)  Thus, as you encounter people coming the other way, they are always on the same side of the path as you.  They usually walk in small groups and as they approach, refuse to move to the correct side, or otherwise move out of your way so you can share the track, so you are forced to walk out into the grass off the track to avoid running into them.  It makes you want to scream "walk on the right side!"  Similarly, whenever you come in to the complex, whatever Indian folks are out - walking, talking, getting in and out of their cars, etc, as you pass them in your vehicle, they STARE at you.  I don't get the feeling it's supposed to be threatening, but I don't know what they're staring at, and I find it very rude and weird.  But I chalk it up to a minor cultural difference and try not to let it bother me, as neither thing puts me too terribly out. I can go to the gym and walk without someone in my way, or the park.

 

Now let me give you a more irritating example.  I take the redline to/from work as many of you know.  During rush hour, the train riders are primarily white people, but also a handful of Asians, Indians and black people.  Largely, it is quiet, even when packed full like it was this morning, or there is quiet, low conversation between riders or folks on the phone.  But it has kind of a low hum/buzz like undercurrent noise.

 

I have taken the train home around lunch hour a couple of times this past month as I only worked half a day and the culture on the train is amazingly different.  It also happens to be nearly 100% African American riders.  Yesterday, for example, when I was the only white person on board in my car, the train floor was littered with garbage, several people were eating and 2 different people were listening to loud music without headphones.  Several other people were conducting extremely loud phone conversations rife with profanity.  I'm no shrinking violet, but I was glad I didn't have my baby with me to hear what they were saying so he could pick it up and say it back to me for fun.  Two different men stared at me in a way that made me very uncomfortable, and I couldn't tell whether they were staring with lecherousness or trying to be threatening, but I didn't like it, and was glad they exited before I did.  I couldn't help but think, Jesus, what is the matter with all of these people and I'm glad they're not on my train every day.  It's very unacceptable to say "these people," but you know, what is the deal?  Why is acting like a rude slob acceptable in any culture?  In some ways, I feel like the AA culture is going backwards instead of forwards.  This is the kind of behavior I dealt with in high school every day (my school was over half black).  As I walked through the hall in the morning, the black guys used to line the halls and comment to you or come up to you and hit on you, asking for your phone number.  If you ignored them, they yelled after you that you were a stuck up bitch.  If you tried to be polite and say hi, they followed you all the way to class, telling you how good you looked and what they'd like to do to you.  If you refused to give out your phone number, they'd scream "What, you don't like black people!?"  At minimum, as you walked by they would lick their lips, make noises or obscene gestures.  I mean, it was really hard not to be a racist in my home town, but I let go of all that in my college years once I met people who didn't act like that, and people of lots of other cultures.  But I swear, I just scratch my head wondering what the deal is.  Is it really all the fault of bad parenting?

 

 

Do not confuse "African-American culture" and "Inner-City Culture."  In African-American culture, you are taught to respect everyone and extend kindness to anyone (goes along with the whole Christianity thing).  Inner-City culture just happens to have many African-Americans, Latinos, and yes, even poor Whites.

I don't believe I'm a racist, but Ill admit to intensely disliking some of cultural differences, not just between whites and blacks, but between whites and non-whites. I'll give a couple of examples.

 

As I've mentioned in other threads, the 900+ unit apartment complex where I live is primarily made up of (Asian) Indians. Two things that seem to be cultural are minor, but annoying when they happen repeatedly. We have a large lake at our property that has a track around it where people walk, jog, etc. The Indians always walk on the "wrong" side, (from an American perspective, using the track-as-road analogy where you walk on the right and overtake someone slower by going around them to the left.) Thus, as you encounter people coming the other way, they are always on the same side of the path as you. They usually walk in small groups and as they approach, refuse to move to the correct side, or otherwise move out of your way so you can share the track, so you are forced to walk out into the grass off the track to avoid running into them. It makes you want to scream "walk on the right side!" Similarly, whenever you come in to the complex, whatever Indian folks are out - walking, talking, getting in and out of their cars, etc, as you pass them in your vehicle, they STARE at you. I don't get the feeling it's supposed to be threatening, but I don't know what they're staring at, and I find it very rude and weird. But I chalk it up to a minor cultural difference and try not to let it bother me, as neither thing puts me too terribly out. I can go to the gym and walk without someone in my way, or the park.

 

Now let me give you a more irritating example. I take the redline to/from work as many of you know. During rush hour, the train riders are primarily white people, but also a handful of Asians, Indians and black people. Largely, it is quiet, even when packed full like it was this morning, or there is quiet, low conversation between riders or folks on the phone. But it has kind of a low hum/buzz like undercurrent noise.

 

I have taken the train home around lunch hour a couple of times this past month as I only worked half a day and the culture on the train is amazingly different. It also happens to be nearly 100% African American riders. Yesterday, for example, when I was the only white person on board in my car, the train floor was littered with garbage, several people were eating and 2 different people were listening to loud music without headphones. Several other people were conducting extremely loud phone conversations rife with profanity. I'm no shrinking violet, but I was glad I didn't have my baby with me to hear what they were saying so he could pick it up and say it back to me for fun. Two different men stared at me in a way that made me very uncomfortable, and I couldn't tell whether they were staring with lecherousness or trying to be threatening, but I didn't like it, and was glad they exited before I did. I couldn't help but think, Jesus, what is the matter with all of these people and I'm glad they're not on my train every day. It's very unacceptable to say "these people," but you know, what is the deal? Why is acting like a rude slob acceptable in any culture? In some ways, I feel like the AA culture is going backwards instead of forwards. This is the kind of behavior I dealt with in high school every day (my school was over half black). As I walked through the hall in the morning, the black guys used to line the halls and comment to you or come up to you and hit on you, asking for your phone number. If you ignored them, they yelled after you that you were a stuck up bitch. If you tried to be polite and say hi, they followed you all the way to class, telling you how good you looked and what they'd like to do to you. If you refused to give out your phone number, they'd scream "What, you don't like black people!?" At minimum, as you walked by they would lick their lips, make noises or obscene gestures. I mean, it was really hard not to be a racist in my home town, but I let go of all that in my college years once I met people who didn't act like that, and people of lots of other cultures. But I swear, I just scratch my head wondering what the deal is. Is it really all the fault of bad parenting?

 

 

Do not confuse "African-American culture" and "Inner-City Culture." In African-American culture, you are taught to respect everyone and extend kindness to anyone (goes along with the whole Christianity thing). Inner-City culture just happens to have many African-Americans, Latinos, and yes, even poor Whites.

 

And this is the root of the problem.  "Inner City Culture" is not condusive to allowing any other culture to co-exist within it.  That culture needs to end...I bet racism drops significantly if it does.

 

 

That's like getting rid of the poor.  Appalachian culture is just as trashy as Inner-city culture, just as racist (if not more, due to isolationism) and yet no one in their right mind would say "get rid of the Appalachians!  They hold back our mountains for luxurious 5-star ski resorts!"  You can certainly improve conditions for poor people (better schools & reworking the welfare system would be a start) but you'll always have that "inner-city culture"...even when it moves to inner-ring suburbs (which it will, eventually).

And this is the root of the problem. "Inner City Culture" is not condusive to allowing any other culture to co-exist within it. That culture needs to end...I bet racism drops significantly if it does.

 

That's a tough one, since the inner-city culture wasn't exactly a spontaneous occurrance.  How bout we do a switcheroo, and see what happens to the inner-city culture after racism subsides? 

As an inner city person who doesn't behave like that stereotype I'm offended :wink:.

 

Racial minorities have a higher crime rate. This is a statistical fact.

 

People kill me when they say stuff like this.

Do they really believe one's race has anything to do with them being involved or victim to crime?

Is it because they are victims of 400 years of a systematically racist justice (and economic) system or do you think crime is just in they DNA? Let us be for real. rofl at "the crime gene".  

I don't think any african americans where involved with the decision to destroy Nagasaki. Massacres in Jenin? nope, white folk there as well. Oh i forgot to mention the complete destruction of native american peoples and culture.   Genocide America refuses to even honor with a holiday. White crime against people of color. Yeah police might arrest and judges will convict (most for nonviolent drug crime) black people more often but i assure you dangerous drugs aren't brought into america by your average working class street peddler.

 

No crime gene; just a living in a culture that facilitates crime. It's not relfective of the race, just the culture of the community people live in.

 

 

True, but there are still other factors which lead to these "statistical facts"... like the fact that the conviction rate is higher and sentencing is longer amongst AA criminal defendants.  That too is a "statistical fact."  It could be due to the racist sentiments of the judge and/or jury and/or prosecutor and/or public defenders.  It could be due to the fact that black's on a whole have less money and are less likely to be able to afford good legal counsel.  It could be because of arbitrary rules such as the fact that crack cocaine crimes are punished much more severely than powder cocaine crimes.  There are a lot of factors that lead to a higher crime rate, socio-economic probably up front, but other collateral factors people too often ignore.

 

To R&R - I would suspect you might have the same experiences if you were riding on a train with a bunch of rednecks leaving a nascar event.  But I do feel sorry for you that you had boys hitting on you and being rude when rejected in HS... no girl should ever have to endure such treatment ;)  To all dads - send your daughters to an all white school and spare them the misery. 

"Do not confuse "African-American culture" and "Inner-City Culture."  In African-American culture, you are taught to respect everyone and extend kindness to anyone (goes along with the whole Christianity thing).  Inner-City culture just happens to have many African-Americans, Latinos, and yes, even poor Whites."

 

I suppose, but I've seen lots of poor whites on the train, and they are not listening to loud music or staring threateningly at me.  Too, I've obviously met and encountered lots of AAs who are kind, respectful, normal people, but it's hard not to wonder why this is happening culturally primarily in the AA community, or at least what appears to be primarily the AA community.

the only threat was your perception.

it's hard not to wonder why this is happening culturally primarily in the AA community, or at least what appears to be primarily the AA community.

 

genuine anger

the only threat was your perception.

 

That's going a little too far.  I don't doubt that she was riding the train with a bunch of A-holes who were giving her dirty looks.  It happens.

 

But R&R, I must say congratulations on so far avoiding "White Thug".... he is out there and multiplying by the day.

I've seen white thugs, but, they appear to be aping AA's in speech and manner?  You know, talking like gangsters, using a "black" dialect, etc.  We used to have "white thugs" in my high school, but they were their own brand of thug (we called them grits, but they used to be called "hoods" generally speaking), not trying to look and sound like AAs.  So it's hard not to think that this is a desired/accepted culture in AA communities, and that whites are imitating it for some reason, maybe this is the cool way to be now?

it's hard not to wonder why this is happening culturally primarily in the AA community, or at least what appears to be primarily the AA community.

 

genuine anger

 

At her?  For doing what, precisely?