New York times op ed on maintaining black spaces

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

Well for one there isn’t a 500+ year history of blacks oppressing whites including forcing them into chattel slavery, segregation, and apartheid. Duh.

“Stuff was really bad for some people in the past, so to right those wrongs from decades ago, we need to deride and denigrate the descendants of those oppressors, who had nothing to do with the original horrors, with an endless steam of borderline racist articles and half baked policies like ending Gifted and Talented and AP classes, using restorative justice and unproven Violence interruptors over policing, and other stuff. Also, anyone who even considers objective thought on any of the new polices is guilty of fragility and must be shamed into submission.”

“Stuff was really bad in the past and there was never any restitution or compensation made to victims and now people want to pretend that doesn’t matter and had no reverberations for future generations. Also this bad stuff was just legally ended only 50 years ago and some victims and perpetrators are still alive.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

Well for one there isn’t a 500+ year history of blacks oppressing whites including forcing them into chattel slavery, segregation, and apartheid. Duh.

“Stuff was really bad for some people in the past, so to right those wrongs from decades ago, we need to deride and denigrate the descendants of those oppressors, who had nothing to do with the original horrors, with an endless steam of borderline racist articles and half baked policies like ending Gifted and Talented and AP classes, using restorative justice and unproven Violence interruptors over policing, and other stuff. Also, anyone who even considers objective thought on any of the new polices is guilty of fragility and must be shamed into submission.”

“Stuff was really bad in the past and there was never any restitution or compensation made to victims and now people want to pretend that doesn’t matter and had no reverberations for future generations. Also this bad stuff was just legally ended only 50 years ago and some victims and perpetrators are still alive.”

and that's why white people shouldn't be so cruel as to look at little libraries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

Well for one there isn’t a 500+ year history of blacks oppressing whites including forcing them into chattel slavery, segregation, and apartheid. Duh.

“Stuff was really bad for some people in the past, so to right those wrongs from decades ago, we need to deride and denigrate the descendants of those oppressors, who had nothing to do with the original horrors, with an endless steam of borderline racist articles and half baked policies like ending Gifted and Talented and AP classes, using restorative justice and unproven Violence interruptors over policing, and other stuff. Also, anyone who even considers objective thought on any of the new polices is guilty of fragility and must be shamed into submission.”

“Stuff was really bad in the past and there was never any restitution or compensation made to victims and now people want to pretend that doesn’t matter and had no reverberations for future generations. Also this bad stuff was just legally ended only 50 years ago and some victims and perpetrators are still alive.”

and that's why white people shouldn't be so cruel as to look at little libraries

We need to segregate these little libraries, so that potential gentrifiers who might see them can’t access them and cause physical harm by their very presence in a certain neighborhood. Anyone who disagrees is a racist who needs to check their privilege or be canceled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than considering the entire op-ed, y'all are cherry picking certain passages that trigger your fear cortex.

Rather than considering the whole article you are happily green lighting woke racism.

Please define woke racism?

Essentially, studying past racial sins from white people against POC to justify the use of modern days use of racism (or I guess bigotry if poc can’t be racist) from POC to white people.

This article is strange because the author was married to a white guy, but there are so many layers to this whole thing.

The article at its core is about gentrification. Black people were long prohibited from buying into certain neighborhoods. Black people had a much, much harder time getting mortgages. Now after going through all that many Black people are getting pushed out of their homes. This whole scenario is grounded in racism. Do you not see the problem? It has nothing to do with woke.

This. And, sadly, when it was black people, the government does nothing to make it a nice space. Once white people come along, everything gets updated - even when income is the same.

Completely simplistic reasoning that doesn’t scratch the surface, but sure. That’s totally it. Maybe people should also work to counter crime, snitch culture, pickup trash in their neighborhood, etc.

Actually, a lot of the gentrified neighborhoods didn't have these problems. Every black neighborhood doesn't suffer from crime or snitch culture. Talk about racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than considering the entire op-ed, y'all are cherry picking certain passages that trigger your fear cortex.

Rather than considering the whole article you are happily green lighting woke racism.

Please define woke racism?

Essentially, studying past racial sins from white people against POC to justify the use of modern days use of racism (or I guess bigotry if poc can’t be racist) from POC to white people.

This article is strange because the author was married to a white guy, but there are so many layers to this whole thing.

The article at its core is about gentrification. Black people were long prohibited from buying into certain neighborhoods. Black people had a much, much harder time getting mortgages. Now after going through all that many Black people are getting pushed out of their homes. This whole scenario is grounded in racism. Do you not see the problem? It has nothing to do with woke.

This. And, sadly, when it was black people, the government does nothing to make it a nice space. Once white people come along, everything gets updated - even when income is the same.

Completely simplistic reasoning that doesn’t scratch the surface, but sure. That’s totally it. Maybe people should also work to counter crime, snitch culture, pickup trash in their neighborhood, etc.

Actually, a lot of the gentrified neighborhoods didn't have these problems. Every black neighborhood doesn't suffer from crime or snitch culture. Talk about racist.

But many neighborhoods do, and statistic bear that out, so your jab of racism falls short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

It's different because blacks have historically been persecuted by whites. If you'd read the entire article, you'd get that.

Be more precise: at some point in the past, some blacks were persecuted by some whites. In both cases, most of the relevant parties are now gone. However, some people now want to claim that wrongs occurring in the past (that didn't happen to them) give them a right to treat other people poorly now (again, these other people did not commit any of the alleged wrongs).

The truth is that lots of minorities are incredibly racist. Indeed, this brain dead CRT stuff has encouraged minorities (including ones that immigrated relatively recently and have never suffered any real discrimination) are acting virtuously if they spew racist bile at white people. Minorities have not had to confront their own prejudice and racism in the way that they demand white people must do.

At some point in the past? It's is a current part of our government structure. How about this - before you post an incredibly ignorant post, you should do a little reading. Read the Color of Law, the Color of Money, The Sum of Us. Then come back and tell me how structural racism doesn't exist. No, the CRT stuff has encouraged ignorant white people to complain about a boogey man they don't even understand. People of color hold no power over white people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NYTs turned off the comments on this article. LOL.

I got to see a few of them before they were turned off. They were either from the bog standard racists or the educated white liberals who heaped on the apologies for being white and affluent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm neither white nor am I Black. I read the op-ed, and I understood perfectly what she was getting at (even though I'm a "white-adjacent" minority).

When I read OP's like yours, I feel hopeless that white Americans as a group will ever truly understand the extent to which they claim ownership of every aspect of American life. TBH, I'm actually okay with white people/culture being dominant (something will be), but the denialism and perpetual victim-hood drives me bonkers.

ODG, what -- pray tell -- is a "'white-adjacent' minority?"

[Anonymous]

I understand many Black people might feel like the author and I completely respect her/their feelings. But what am I, as White person, supposed to take away from the NYT publishing this? Or even from her submitting this piece for publication? Clearly these are her feelings but what is she trying to accomplish by having them published in a national newspaper? Just curious what others think. Please, serious comments only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am glad I am not white and my white relatives are recent Caucasian immigrants as we have no part of this and can't be blamed.

You won't be blamed but your recent Caucasian immigrant relatives will be blamed. I posted about how my white son who lived in and was adopted from horrific circumstances that left him with emotional and physical limitations was told by his public school teacher that he was a privileged white male who was forced to apologize to his black classmates for what his ancestors did to them. His ancestors were at best serfs or cannon fodder in the Tsar's wars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

It's different because blacks have historically been persecuted by whites. If you'd read the entire article, you'd get that.

Be more precise: at some point in the past, some blacks were persecuted by some whites. In both cases, most of the relevant parties are now gone. However, some people now want to claim that wrongs occurring in the past (that didn't happen to them) give them a right to treat other people poorly now (again, these other people did not commit any of the alleged wrongs).

The truth is that lots of minorities are incredibly racist. Indeed, this brain dead CRT stuff has encouraged minorities (including ones that immigrated relatively recently and have never suffered any real discrimination) are acting virtuously if they spew racist bile at white people. Minorities have not had to confront their own prejudice and racism in the way that they demand white people must do.

At some point in the past? It's is a current part of our government structure. How about this - before you post an incredibly ignorant post, you should do a little reading. Read the Color of Law, the Color of Money, The Sum of Us. Then come back and tell me how structural racism doesn't exist. No, the CRT stuff has encouraged ignorant white people to complain about a boogey man they don't even understand. People of color hold no power over white people.

Yes, structural racism is bad.

So is foisting racial animosity on people, because of the color of their skin, who happen to walk by a public little library and stop.

Writing a comment like this: “ But while I had seen white newcomers to the neighborhood here and there, the truth was, I hadn’t set it out to appeal to white residents.‘

There really was no point to the article, save for some kind of acerbic gloating from the author that allowed her to spitefully abuse a group of people with impunity.

Is this the new normal? Where it’s totally allowable to bag on a group of people? Is it the way to right past wrongs?



“

[Anonymous]

Imagine if Germans were still forced everyday to keep apologizing for the Holocaust, or the Japanese for killing millions of Chinese, or Mongolians apologizing to half of Asia because the god they worship (Ghengis Khan) killed, raped, and enslaved his way across the continent 800 years ago.

History is rough. We can keep demanding apologies for almost anything from now until the end of time.

[Anonymous]

Lots of fragility on display here!

[Anonymous]

If only journalism was held to the standard of treating races equal. The backlash if this was about “white space” would be swift and painful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of fragility on display here!

The old standby! Way to shut down debate! Slam dunk!