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.


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.


More like, all blacks were persecuted by most whites, including the government. Your whole post is just a bumch of white washing.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:That op ed viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint in today’s climate.

That was given a megaphone.
And of course it’s going to be cherry picked to death by Fox News
And the Daily Caller and every other RWNJ website and news outlet.
These isn’t an interesting thought exercise.
Its unhelpful.
We have to find a place to unite in the middle.
This kind of stuff isn’t going to get us there.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Can you link it?


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/opinion/gentrification-los-angeles-little-library.html


Aaaaaaand this is why people will be voting Republican in November. This myopic singular focus on identity politics. This is just utter, navel-gazing, polarizing click bait tripe that further Balkanizes an already polarized United States. At worst the author is a clueless naive bigot and at worst a racist. Oops I forgot in this day and age she can’t be racist.


^^^ Proof positive that Republicans are racist white supremacists right here, where the reaction to a perceived threat by black people is to vote republican.


I guess. Or more likely the people voting Republican will include the Latino population who have shown increasing support for republicans and Asian people turned off by the TJ high school type of push that hurts their children’s entry into good schools.

Also, in real life people care about money and security. Voters see the liberal push for all things identity politics all the time and the exasperated nature of it all and are turned off. Calling anyone a racist who may want to employ critical thinking on policy issues is not a winning campaign strategy.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That op ed viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint in today’s climate.

That was given a megaphone.
And of course it’s going to be cherry picked to death by Fox News
And the Daily Caller and every other RWNJ website and news outlet.
These isn’t an interesting thought exercise.
Its unhelpful.
We have to find a place to unite in the middle.
This kind of stuff isn’t going to get us there.

Makes you wonder why the “liberal New York Times” published it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That op ed viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint in today’s climate.

That was given a megaphone.
And of course it’s going to be cherry picked to death by Fox News
And the Daily Caller and every other RWNJ website and news outlet.
These isn’t an interesting thought exercise.
Its unhelpful.
We have to find a place to unite in the middle.
This kind of stuff isn’t going to get us there.


The op-ed actually was a middle ground. It sounds like you're the one who needs to "get there". Sorry, but you're not entitled to dictate how black people identify themselves.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Rather than considering the entire op-ed, y'all are cherry picking certain passages that trigger your fear cortex.



This! Most are missing the point.


I’m sorry I cherry picked these actual words.:

“ Then one morning, glancing out my front window, I saw a young white couple stopped at the library. Instantly, I was flooded with emotions — astonishment, and then resentment, and then astonishment at my resentment. It all converged into a silent scream in my head of, Get off my lawn!

The moment jolted me into realizing some things I’m not especially proud of. I had set out this library for all who lived here, and even for those who didn’t, in theory. I would not want to restrict anyone from looking at it or taking books, based on race or anything else. 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.

Now that they were in front of my house, curious about this new neighborhood attraction, I didn’t know how to feel. By bringing this modern cultural artifact here from white neighborhoods, had I set myself up, set up the neighborhood? Was I contributing to gentrification and sending the wrong message about how I wanted the neighborhood to be?

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

It sounds like the author would prefer segregation.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That op ed viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint in today’s climate.

That was given a megaphone.
And of course it’s going to be cherry picked to death by Fox News
And the Daily Caller and every other RWNJ website and news outlet.
These isn’t an interesting thought exercise.
Its unhelpful.
We have to find a place to unite in the middle.
This kind of stuff isn’t going to get us there.


The op-ed actually was a middle ground. It sounds like you're the one who needs to "get there". Sorry, but you're not entitled to dictate how black people identify themselves.


A middle ground? This woman out a library box in her yard then was mad white people looked at it. I think you are a racist, poster. Or are okay with racism against certain groups. No amount of post-modern philosophical reasoning you may seek to employ in justifying your perverse reasoning passes the smell test. Racism is racism. Jut replace the words in the article with another racial group and see how it sounds.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That op ed viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint in today’s climate.

That was given a megaphone.
And of course it’s going to be cherry picked to death by Fox News
And the Daily Caller and every other RWNJ website and news outlet.
These isn’t an interesting thought exercise.
Its unhelpful.
We have to find a place to unite in the middle.
This kind of stuff isn’t going to get us there.

It kind of proves the point that the media is totally right wing. NYT seems to love doing this kind of article that provokes such a strong right wing response and drives further polarization. NYT knows what they’re doing here and it’s really smit behavior.
Anonymous
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.


Are they really being pushed out of their homes?

Black homeowners in the district have made fortunes in gentrification. Are we weeping for them?

Plenty of white homeowners lost money in selling in changing neighborhoods in the past. Are we weeping for them?

Neighborhoods are always changing. Constantly changing over time as groups come and go. Little Italy in NYC is now primarily Chinatown and who knows what it will be tomorrow. I'm sure there was resistance from the old residents as newcomers moved in. I studied a great deal of urban 19th and early 20th century history and the plight of rapidly changing neighborhoods, usually in the face of industrialization and commercialization, was a common wail but to no avail and people moved. No one owns anything. No one has a right to a permanently unchanging place. Nor is it always white versus black, with the booming Latino populations these days. And school redistricting in the suburbs in the name of equity equally draws the ire of Asians and South Asians who'd thought they'd bought into highly desirable zones and paid top dollar for it.

It does seem like some of the angry voices on the racial left are arguing for a return to the days of Plessy v. Ferguson. Separate but equal. Is that what they really want? Because the price for carving out your special privileged exception is that there is no grounds for refusing others in doing the same.
Anonymous
MLK would be so sad if he were able to read this piece.
Anonymous
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.


Are they really being pushed out of their homes?

Black homeowners in the district have made fortunes in gentrification. Are we weeping for them?

Plenty of white homeowners lost money in selling in changing neighborhoods in the past. Are we weeping for them?

Neighborhoods are always changing. Constantly changing over time as groups come and go. Little Italy in NYC is now primarily Chinatown and who knows what it will be tomorrow. I'm sure there was resistance from the old residents as newcomers moved in. I studied a great deal of urban 19th and early 20th century history and the plight of rapidly changing neighborhoods, usually in the face of industrialization and commercialization, was a common wail but to no avail and people moved. No one owns anything. No one has a right to a permanently unchanging place. Nor is it always white versus black, with the booming Latino populations these days. And school redistricting in the suburbs in the name of equity equally draws the ire of Asians and South Asians who'd thought they'd bought into highly desirable zones and paid top dollar for it.

It does seem like some of the angry voices on the racial left are arguing for a return to the days of Plessy v. Ferguson. Separate but equal. Is that what they really want? Because the price for carving out your special privileged exception is that there is no grounds for refusing others in doing the same.


There is power in victimhood. You can stymie any debate with barbs of racism. Israel also does it with calling anyone criticism anti-Semitic. No one wants to be labeled either things. It’s an effective tool. Additionally, when you shout racism all the time, while also ingraining in young people that self accountability should takes a back seat to perpetual grievance culture or that nothing is in their control, you get modern day America in 2021.

Don’t get me wrong the historical legacy of slavery is terrible, so is antisemism. However, these types of articles where a lady can basically bag on white people looking at her stupid little library mailbox and claiming it wasn’t for them or people like them and then posters coming on here agreeing with her and claiming it’s not racism is concerning. We live in interesting times.
Anonymous
Because the price for carving out your special privileged exception is that there is no grounds for refusing others in doing the same.


This. Shouldn't the goal be to provide everyone with the same opportunities, regardless of skin color?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:MLK would be so sad if he were able to read this piece.


Unfortunately, he can't, because he was murdered by a white racist.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: