Gentrifiers and Black Lives Matter yard signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a bunch of black yahoos and white yahoos. You all alienate more people than you "ally" with. You are all alienating people left and right, with your signs, tshirts, words, and stupid thoughts that "you" are any different than "I".

Grow up already. It's not about A vs. B etc,, no Us vs. Them. There is only "we" and until that position is solidly adopted, there will be unrest.

Does that mean we are all yahoos - you included?

[Anonymous]

OP here again - the schools issue is such a hard one. Yes, it's hypocritical and damaging to the community to not send your kids to the neighborhood school. Yes, I want the best for my kid and I'm not willing to sacrifice his education for the good of others. I feel like most parents feel that way. That said, I would much rather send my child to an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse school than a homogeneous private or suburban public school. Isn't that why we chose to live in the city instead of the suburbs anyways? It's not like any of us want to deal with the charter lottery process. I don't have a good answer to the school issue, but know that the charter/DCPS debate is more about class and education than race - my workplace is 90% black/latino and NONE of the educated, middle class, mostly DC natives that I work with send their kids to their in-boundary DCPS. Literally nobody that I've asked (and I ask everyone with school aged kids) does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have one of those signs that says "wherever you're from, we're glad you're our neighbor" in English, Arabic and Spanish. Twice people have knocked on our door and thanked us for having it out there. That felt good if we are contributing in some way to a more welcome feeling. It's not a replacement for activism but I think it does matter.

Just out of curiosity-- how many of your actual neighbors speak Spanish or Arabic ?

I don't know the percentages, but I'd guesstimate that 25% speak Spanish. Fewer probably speak Arabic but there are several churches near us with Middle Eastern populations, so more than 0%. Of the two people who knocked on our door to talk about the sign, I believe one was Spanish-speaking and one Arabic-speaking, based on their accents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a bunch of black yahoos and white yahoos. You all alienate more people than you "ally" with. You are all alienating people left and right, with your signs, tshirts, words, and stupid thoughts that "you" are any different than "I".

Grow up already. It's not about A vs. B etc,, no Us vs. Them. There is only "we" and until that position is solidly adopted, there will be unrest.

OP again - I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Who is being alienated? There is definitely not only "we" because I am not the same as the latino immigrant family two doors down or the black grandma and her grandkids in a subsidized rental house across the street. I am white, high(ish) income, have a postgraduate education, and have the ability to move my family to the suburbs whenever I feel like it. Maybe I'm missing the point of what you're saying, but there are some people I am concerned with alienating, and some that I couldn't care less about if it means trivializing those differences. Please clarify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here again - the schools issue is such a hard one. Yes, it's hypocritical and damaging to the community to not send your kids to the neighborhood school. Yes, I want the best for my kid and I'm not willing to sacrifice his education for the good of others. I feel like most parents feel that way. That said, I would much rather send my child to an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse school than a homogeneous private or suburban public school. Isn't that why we chose to live in the city instead of the suburbs anyways? It's not like any of us want to deal with the charter lottery process. I don't have a good answer to the school issue, but know that the charter/DCPS debate is more about class and education than race - my workplace is 90% black/latino and NONE of the educated, middle class, mostly DC natives that I work with send their kids to their in-boundary DCPS. Literally nobody that I've asked (and I ask everyone with school aged kids) does.

It's very different for your middle class, minority coworker to send their kid to KIPP, than for you to send your kid to LAMB because you don't want your kids with "those kids." Intersectionality means race AND class. Not that a white gentrifier can abstract away race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - this is a great discussion, thanks for all of the responses. My intent with a sign would be to do what others mentioned - indicate allyship with the intent of opening lines of communication with our neighbors. I think demonstrating awareness and recognizing white privilege (especially in a gentrifying neighborhood) is important and not something that we can assume everyone is on the same page about. We know and are friendly with all of the neighbors on our block already and make an effort to contribute to the neighborhood (shoveling the neighbor's walk, helping the older folks carry things, etc.). The point isn't to pat ourselves on the back, but to be kind because that's the right thing to do. (Plus it's easier to knock on the neighbor's door to borrow something if you already know their name!)

I actually work in social services in DC, so although I don't spend a ton of extra time outside of work hours, I do work in the community I live in (it's a lame excuse, but it's HARD to do anything between naps on the weekend!). I appreciate the reminders that if I am willing to put up a sign, I should be willing to sacrifice some actual time and energy to actions as well.

I don't have a problem with the signs, but it sounds like you have an Internet-y idea of race relations. Your neighbors may not care about "allyship" as expressed by a sign, when you are materially contributing to gentrification, deteriorating neighborhood schools, etc. "Demonstrating awareness" is also not going to take you very far when it comes to actually establishing relationships with your neighbors. TONS of people in my neighborhood have these signs; yet they are the WORST hypocrites when it comes to schools etc.

I am confused. Is it not possible that someone thinks their own kids will be better off going to school with mostly high SES kids, yet still object to violence against young black men by the police? Isn't BLM a statement of support for the basic idea that black people should not be shot by representatives of the state, rather than a sign of agreement with all political positions held by african americans?

You mean "black lives matter BUT I wouldn't EVER EVRR OMG! send my child to school with your black child!" No, that doesn't really work.

I get PP's point, but... I think I agree with the bolded.

You can't gentrify, slap a sticker on your yard and attend a SURJ meeting or two, and think that absolves you of what you're doing as a gentrify-er.

-- NP, and a gentrify-er (not in DC) who has seen some really ugly things done to her "old" neighbors by the "new" neighbors.

Well first, I doubt all the white people living in gentrifying areas and using charter schools really don't want to send their kid to school with a black child. That's an exaggeration used here on DCUM alot, but doesn't match the fact that sought after charters, sought after WOTP schools, and sought after suburban schools do have black children. You can disagree with someone who finds a school that is 80% black, and over 50% FARMs, say, intimidating, but it seems a stretch to me that say that someone who feels that way can't also object (STRONGLY) to police violence against blacks. I mean I don't see how you build coalitions if you are constantly judging your would be allies like that. I don't think that will result in a surge of white enrollment at EOTP elementary schools - it WILL silence and discourage people who might have worked for change on an issue which many African Americans (though I suppose not all) consider a matter of life and death.


BTW, as for "what you are doing as a gentrifier" you are buying real estate. That likely harms low income renters, but benefits old neighbors who owned property. It is not at all settled that "gentrification" is a big net harm (there are studies showing it is not) and to the extent it is, can be offset by support for committed affordable housing, which an DC at least, many gentrifiers support (though not all).

[Anonymous]

I don't care if white gentrifiers have a Black Lives Matter sign in their yard or not.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they're decent people regardless until they prove otherwise.
BUT...
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
White people I don't know what y'all fascination is with showing everybody your business but I can tell you the colored folks in the neighborhoods y'all moving into - they don't wanna see everything going on in your house after dark so before you get that sign get some curtains or some blinds and please...use them.

(All in fun)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again - the schools issue is such a hard one. Yes, it's hypocritical and damaging to the community to not send your kids to the neighborhood school. Yes, I want the best for my kid and I'm not willing to sacrifice his education for the good of others. I feel like most parents feel that way. That said, I would much rather send my child to an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse school than a homogeneous private or suburban public school. Isn't that why we chose to live in the city instead of the suburbs anyways? It's not like any of us want to deal with the charter lottery process. I don't have a good answer to the school issue, but know that the charter/DCPS debate is more about class and education than race - my workplace is 90% black/latino and NONE of the educated, middle class, mostly DC natives that I work with send their kids to their in-boundary DCPS. Literally nobody that I've asked (and I ask everyone with school aged kids) does.

It's very different for your middle class, minority coworker to send their kid to KIPP, than for you to send your kid to LAMB because you don't want your kids with "those kids." Intersectionality means race AND class. Not that a white gentrifier can abstract away race.

So if I, a white who sent my kid to suburban schools, buys a houses in a heavily black neighborhood as an empty nester, that is cool? How is that tangibly better for black children? I guess I am too old to understand why statements and purity are so much more important than actual change.

Also what if someone doesn't care about intersectionality, but just opposes police violence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again - the schools issue is such a hard one. Yes, it's hypocritical and damaging to the community to not send your kids to the neighborhood school. Yes, I want the best for my kid and I'm not willing to sacrifice his education for the good of others. I feel like most parents feel that way. That said, I would much rather send my child to an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse school than a homogeneous private or suburban public school. Isn't that why we chose to live in the city instead of the suburbs anyways? It's not like any of us want to deal with the charter lottery process. I don't have a good answer to the school issue, but know that the charter/DCPS debate is more about class and education than race - my workplace is 90% black/latino and NONE of the educated, middle class, mostly DC natives that I work with send their kids to their in-boundary DCPS. Literally nobody that I've asked (and I ask everyone with school aged kids) does.

It's very different for your middle class, minority coworker to send their kid to KIPP, than for you to send your kid to LAMB because you don't want your kids with "those kids." Intersectionality means race AND class. Not that a white gentrifier can abstract away race.

OP again - I don't know the charters well enough (yet) to understand the context to this comment. What kids go to LAMB vs. KIPP? Would you say there's a difference between me wanting my kids to go to KIPP versus my coworker wanting her kids to go to KIPP? Or my kid going to LAMB verus her kid? I don't know what other parents consider in deciding on what charters to lottery for, but if there was a convenient, high achieving, and stable charter offering my kid a slot, I don't think I'd care if it was 95% black and/or low income students. Now if I had to drive across town then backtrack to work, that may be more of an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if white gentrifiers have a Black Lives Matter sign in their yard or not.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they're decent people regardless until they prove otherwise.
BUT...
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
White people I don't know what y'all fascination is with showing everybody your business but I can tell you the colored folks in the neighborhoods y'all moving into - they don't wanna see everything going on in your house after dark so before you get that sign get some curtains or some blinds and please...use them.

(All in fun)

Haha, OP here and we definitely have curtains. It kind of boggles my mind how people leave their blinds/curtains open. Are others seriously not leaving toys on the floor or picking their noses in their living room?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a sign on your front lawn to support a cause? More effective would be to volunteer or DO something rather than a shallow sign of status.

I agree that only having a yard sign is not enough. But I don't think that OP is suggesting that having a yard sign is her only form of activism.

Having a yard sign or bumper sticker or button or whatever is a very easy, very cheap, very small thing. But, I don't think it's harmful.

Actually, OP said exactly that. She admitted that her only form of activism is her "social worker" job and she can't do much more than that. So, yeah, basically OP just wants to put a sign on her lawn (and still send her kid to LAMB). Just another hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

I am confused. Is it not possible that someone thinks their own kids will be better off going to school with mostly high SES kids, yet still object to violence against young black men by the police? Isn't BLM a statement of support for the basic idea that black people should not be shot by representatives of the state, rather than a sign of agreement with all political positions held by african americans?

Really? So you're basically saying that anyone that doesn't support BLM believes that innocent people SHOULD be shot by state reps? You need to read up on the issue before taking a position. No one thinks innocent people should just be randomly shot and everyone thinks it's horrible. That's not the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Virtue signaling is so obnoxious.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Virtue signaling is so obnoxious.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am confused. Is it not possible that someone thinks their own kids will be better off going to school with mostly high SES kids, yet still object to violence against young black men by the police? Isn't BLM a statement of support for the basic idea that black people should not be shot by representatives of the state, rather than a sign of agreement with all political positions held by african americans?

Really? So you're basically saying that anyone that doesn't support BLM believes that innocent people SHOULD be shot by state reps? You need to read up on the issue before taking a position. No one thinks innocent people should just be randomly shot and everyone thinks it's horrible. That's not the issue.

To be honest, I don't get the people who object to the BLM slogan. They either seem to think that the police never shoot genuinely innocent people, or that efforts to reduce police violence have greater costs in crime than benefits, or they do not think police are biased against blacks. Whatever. Its not up to me to explain why someone would not support the essential policy goal of BLM. What I do know is that the consistent regular emphasis of BLM has been about reducing police violence against minorities. Whether tweeting, organizing rallies, or whatever. Now there may be some BLM "leaders" or websites with a broader agenda, but I do not think one has to sign on to any other agenda in order to want to express the sentiment that black lives matter. If one believes that there is a problem with police racism AND that there are too many shootings of and harassment of blacks by police (IE not "random") and that policies need to be implemented to address that, then I think you can support BLM, whatever your feelings about intersectionality, reparations, foreign policy, or charter schools.