Don’t Speak!

duct-tape-mouth


Philadelphia Magazine:

Being White in Philly

Whites, race, class, and the things that never get said.

My younger son goes to Temple, where he’s a sophomore. This year he’s living in an apartment with two friends at 19th and Diamond, just a few blocks from campus. It’s a dangerous neighborhood. Whenever I go see Nick, I get antsy and wonder what I was thinking, allowing him to rent there.

One day, before I pick him up for lunch, I stop to talk to a cop who’s parked a block away from Nick’s apartment.

“Is he already enrolled for classes?” the cop says when I point out where my son lives.

Well, given that it’s December, I think so. But his message is clear: Bad idea, this neighborhood. A lot of burglaries and robberies. Temple students are prime prey, the cop says.

Later, driving up Broad Street as I head home to Mount Airy, I stop at a light just north of Lycoming and look over at some rowhouses. One has a padlocked front door. A torn sheet covering the window in that door looks like it might be stained with sewage. I imagine not a crackhouse, but a child, maybe several children, living on the other side of that stained sheet. Plenty of children in Philadelphia live in places like that. Plenty live on Diamond, where my son rents, where there always seem to be a lot of men milling around doing absolutely nothing, where it’s clearly not a safe place to be.

I’ve shared my view of North Broad Street with people—white friends and colleagues—who see something else there: New buildings. Progress. Gentrification. They’re sunny about the area around Temple. I think they’re blind, that they’ve stopped looking. Indeed, I’ve begun to think that most white people stopped looking around at large segments of our city, at our poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods, a long time ago. One of the reasons, plainly put, is queasiness over race. Many of those neighborhoods are predominantly African-American. And if you’re white, you don’t merely avoid them—you do your best to erase them from your thoughts.

At the same time, white Philadelphians think a great deal about race. Begin to talk to people, and it’s clear it’s a dominant motif in and around our city. Everyone seems to have a story, often an uncomfortable story, about how white and black people relate.

Take a young woman I’ll call Susan, whom I met recently. She lost her BlackBerry in a biology lab at Villanova and Facebooked all the class members she could find, “wondering if you happened to pick it up or know who did.” No one had it. There was one black student in the class, whom I’ll call Carol, who responded: “Why would I just happen to pick up a BlackBerry and if this is a personal message I’m offended!”

Susan assured her that she had Facebooked the whole class. Carol wrote: “Next time be careful what type of messages you send around and what you say in them.”

[…]

Confusion, misread intentions, bruised feelings—everyone has not only a race story, but a thousand examples of trying to sort through our uneasiness on levels large and trivial. I do, too. My rowhouse in Mount Airy is on a mostly African-American block; it’s middle-class and friendly—in fact, it’s the friendliest street my family has ever lived on, with block parties and a spirit of watching out for each other. Whether a neighbor is black or white seems to be of no consequence whatsoever.

Yet there’s a dance I do when I go to the Wawa on Germantown Avenue. I find myself being overly polite. Each time I hold the door a little too long for a person of color, I laugh at myself, both for being so self-consciously courteous and for knowing that I’m measuring the thank-you’s. A friend who walks to his car parked on Front Street downtown early each morning has a similar running joke with himself. As he walks, my friend says hello and makes eye contact with whoever crosses his path. If the person is white, he’s bestowing a tiny bump of friendliness. If the person is black, it’s friendliness and a bit more: He’s doing something positive for race relations.

On one level, such self-consciousness and hypersensitivity can be seen as progress when it comes to race, a sign of how much attitudes have shifted for the better, a symbol of our desire for things to be better. And yet, lately I’ve come to fear that the opposite might also be true: that our carefulness is, in fact, at the heart of the problem.

Fifty years after the height of the civil rights movement, more than 25 years after electing its first African-American mayor, Philadelphia remains a largely segregated city, with uneasy boundaries in culture and understanding. And also in well-being. There is a black middle class, certainly, and blacks are well-represented in our power structure, but there remains a vast and seemingly permanent black underclass. Thirty-one percent of Philadelphia’s more than 600,000 black residents live below the poverty line. Blacks are more likely than whites to be victims of a crime or commit one, to drop out of school and to be unemployed.

What gets examined publicly about race is generally one-dimensional, looked at almost exclusively from the perspective of people of color. Of course, it is black people who have faced generations of discrimination and who deal with it still. But our public discourse ignores the fact that race—particularly in a place like Philadelphia—is also an issue for white people. Though white people never talk about it.

Everyone might have a race story, but few whites risk the third-rail danger of speaking publicly about race, given the long, troubled history of race relations in this country and even more so in this city. Race is only talked about in a sanitized form, when it’s talked about at all, with actual thoughts and feelings buried, which only ups the ante. Race remains the elephant in the room, even on the absurd level of who holds the door to enter a convenience store.


This may surprise Touré Neblett and Ta-Nehisi Coates, but white people don’t break out the “N-word” and talk about “uppity negroes” whenever black people aren’t around. In fact, white people feel uncomfortable discussing race at all, no matter who they are with.

The reason for that is simple – racism is the worst social taboo in the country. The only things worse than racism are crimes like rape and child molestation. But for non-crimes, racism is the very worst. You can be a sexist, tell crude jokes, suffer from chronic halitosis and B.O. or even fart in church and you’ll get less disapprobation and condemnation.

That’s why the race card makes such an effective cudgel – people are terrified of being thought as racists. So what happens when white people do start talking about race?

Controversial Article Published In Local Magazine Has Mayor Nutter Asking For Investigation

A controversial article published in Philadelphia Magazine this month has the attention of the Nutter Administration.

The article, titled “Being White in Philly,” features a series of interviews with anonymous white residents from different areas of the city who share stories about their interaction with black residents.

Mayor Nutter calls the article’s tone “disgusting,” and he’s asked the Human Relations Commission to investigate some of the sensitive racial issues explored in the piece.


I’m sure that’s gonna facilitate a lot of discussion and sharing.



About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Racism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Don’t Speak!

  1. HELENK says:

    from personal experience for many years I have watched the white flight out of Philly. I watched West Philly where my grandparents and parents lived turn in to a slum.The Temple neighborhood that the article is talking about, I lived at Broad and Lycoming when I first got married it was a working class neighborhood. The neighbor hood around M and Erie where my youngest kids were born.when my daughter took my grand daughters to see were she spend part of her childhood they told her they did not realise that she had lived in a slum.
    these were all nice neighborhoods that a white person would no longer be safe waiking around.
    If that sounds racist I am sorry, but it is fact. I cry when I go back and see what has happened to the city where America was born

    • I feel your pain. I was born in the city of Boston. We lived in the Roxbury section, on Washington St- right under the elevated train near Egelston Sq. White working class neighborhood. Twenty years later is was a slum
      Now I’ll be a big ole racist and point out I drove through about five years ago and things seem to be turning around.
      It has become a Hispanic working class neighborhood from what I can tell.
      What is wrong wit this picture?

      • wmcb says:

        One of the reasons that the new working class Hispanic neighborhood seems to be turning it around is likely because no one tried to “help” them overly much by drilling it into them daily what victims they were, and riding to position and influence on the backs of their convenient (for the poverty pimps) victimhood.

        Just a guess.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    MSNBC:

    This month’s Philadelphia Magazine cover reads very loudly.

    The cover reads, “Being White In Philly,“ a reference to the issue’s lead story on how white middle-class Philadelphia residents feel about issues of race, poverty and segregation. The article has been blasted on local Philadelphia city papers, blogs and social media for negatively portraying African-Americans.

    Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter recently called parts of the story “disgusting.”

    The story’s writer, Bob Huber, spent several weeks in the Fairmount neighborhood of Philly talking to middle class white residents about how race “affects them.”

    One response from a woman Huber identifies as “Anna”:

    “Blacks use skin color as an excuse. Discrimination is an excuse, instead of moving forward. It’s a shame–you pay taxes, they’re not doing anything except sitting on porches smoking pot…Why do you support them when they won’t work, just make babies and smoking pot? […]“

    Another response from 87-year-old “John,” who recalls an encounter with a young boy who came into his house:

    “It was a ni**er boy, a big tall kid. He wanted money.”

    Other “responses” from white residents include tales of black drug dealers and thieves.

    The magazine’s editor, Tom McGrath, told me in a phone interview Monday afternoon much of the criticism of the article is “fair.”

    “This [story] certainly had some flaws in it,” McGrath said. “We by no means were trying to do a definitive take on race relations in Philadelphia. We set out to do this from one particular point of view.”

    For many, including writers on the magazine’s own staff, that’s putting it lightly. Steve Volk, a senior writer for the magazine, slammed the entire story for not providing enough context or depth. “Bob assures me he just wanted to let his sources speak for themselves in this story,” Volk wrote. “But he seems to miss the obvious here, which is that if white Philadelphians would like to be able to address race without being labeled ‘racist,’ they should avoid saying racist things. But there are further layers of error and creeping bias to uncover here […]“

    McGrath admits the fallout from the ‘Being White’ article is the biggest reaction to a story he’s seen in his career. The premise of the story made sense, he says—to focus on one specific neighborhood and get reactions from those residents.

    • HELENK says:

      My husband was born and raised in Fairmount. I was a working class neighborhood. The it became the ” Art Museum Area” and yuppies moved in and taxes went up and many could no longer afford to live there. It was a close knit area of various ethnic groups. I remember having a reunion of all the guys my husband grew up with and hearing the stories and laughing. Some of them had not seen each other in 25 years and just watching them was great. It took me over 20 years to become “Fairmount” you see my husband had married an outsider
      Philadelphia was a city of neighborhoods and parishes.

  3. driguana says:

    One of the things I would like to see is a very in-depth survey of what ethnic groups think of each other. Start with the stereotypes, assumptions and misconceptions and have dialogue around those issues…..those are the stereotypes that get discussed behind each others backs….so, go for it. What do Koreans think of African-Americans? African-Americans of Latinos? Germans of French? Italians of Irish? Lebanese of Greeks? Hispanics of Mexican? (that’s a good one here in Santa Fe!!!)….and so on…

    • wmcb says:

      I’ve managed to do a little bit of that with friends, but almost all of them, of whatever race, ruefully admit that having the conversations we had over a beer and bbq would be next to impossible in a public forum.

      I actually think that we as individuals can do a decent job of solving some of this shit satisfactorily – if the public pot-stirrers with agendas for white, black, or brown would leave us the hell alone.

      • 49erDweet (D) says:

        “….leave us the hell alone.”
        That’d be messing with their livelihoods. Fat chance.

  4. myiq2xu says:

    Being Black In College: Being White In Philly Counter

    As a Temple student, I can applaud Huber for not only tackling a touchy subject but for choosing this particular perspective. I say this because it’s very frustrating to attend racially focused classes where the classroom is predominantly white but with little participation. For example, I took a course called Historical Significance of Race in America with a friend of mine my sophomore year at Temple. Naturally, I was both excited and a little anxious to discuss and debate some of our country’s darkest moments in history. We discussed all the events that have brought us to our thoughts of race today from: slavery, black caricatures, stereotypes, the Trail of Tears, Japanese-American concentration camps and so on. Concepts, definitions, and dates were fairly simple to understand. Yet, the main struggle I found in this class tackling the topic of racial tensions exclusively between whites and blacks. In every discussion it felt like either no one wanted to say what was truly on their mind without sounding too racist. That issue aside, when people did participate it was almost always white vs. black in every topic. Showing that we clearly could only hear our own points and not fully rotate to other thought processes. This obviously wasn’t the first time I noticed this separation of views but I wondered how this is possible in college. I mean at this age were supposed to be out experiencing as many different cultures as possible and taking down the stereotypes that kept us in our sheltered environments for so long. So I must say as initially irritating as the title was, seconds later I was interested in what the author did with this piece.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    Field Negro:

    This anecdote sets the tone for the entire article. The author talks to different anonymous white folks who live around the city and who express various degrees of frustration over the browning of their city and the pitfalls of navigating through it.

    There is also a general theme throughout the piece that whites would like to engage blacks and talk about race but us black folks make it hard for them to do so.

    Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Does talking about race make us a little more upset than it does you? Of course it does. Talking about racism with a white person is like that pig and chicken discussion about breakfast: When you are the pig you are the f*****g breakfast. The chicken (see white folks) can drop an egg and keep it poppin.

    I would like to give Philadelphia Magazine credit for attempting to at least start a dialogue, but hey, it’s Philadelphia Magazine, so unfortunately I can’t.

    “But racial history is uncomfortable. That’s because it’s filled with structural violence that is based in real physical violence. This is the case for far (far) more brown people than white people. It’s time to get uncomfortable, white folks (I’m looking at you, author!). Time to step out of our neurotic obsession with blackness and talk to people of color about their experience of the world. Lucky for us, it’s not going to involve real physical violence, despite the undertone of this piece. – A white lady who has lived at 22nd and Federal and 23rd and Poplar
    · What Huber doesn’t really have the stones to write about is the poverty that pervades so many neighborhoods in Philadelphia and crushes people’s lives, because his subscribers on the Main Line or in Cherry Hill don’t want their peaceful dream of entitlement disturbed. So instead, he blends anecdotes into a soothing milkshake of “See, even nice people with the best possible motives can’t get along with black people because they’re SO DARNED TOUCHY. It’s not you, it’s them!” Talk about an advanced case of White Male Privilege.

    There’s a reason why only people in the suburbs subscribe to this local version of SkyMall. They wouldn’t want to read anything that actually looks at economic inequality, heavens no.

    · This is the type of irresponsible drivel you get when you only see the world through biased/racist eyes.When you can’t even see the bias/racism in your stories anymore. Philadelphia magazine is officially trash.”

    Apparently I am not alone.

  6. HELENK says:

    after we moved from Broad and Lycoming, we went back to see a friend that was bartending. A black women came in crying and said her husband was going to kill her. Our friend who was moonlighting as a bartender got on the phone a called police. the husband came with a gun, my husband and the bartender’s brother held the door closed so he could not get in. yelling hit the floor he has a gun. it is not easy to hit the floor when you are 7 months pregnant. he shot through the door hit our friend the bartender. He was just wounded. they guy got off with just bail.

    the day of the MLK shooting, I was working in a building between two bell telephone offices. they had not put the flag at half mast. We were let go early because of fear of violence. In trying to get to the train station, I ran into a mob and the only way I could get around them was to walk in the middle of traffic on a very busy street.

    I worked at 30th st station during the MOVE standoff that went on for months at 34th st. The had shot a cop and at that time the mayor was Frank Rizzo. He contained them without shooting them or anyone else being killed
    Several years later the MOVE group had moved to the cobbs creek park area. when they were confronted there was a stand off. they went on the roofs of a whole block of row homes and poured gasoline on them. When the police dropped smoke bombs ( not knowing about the gasoline) a whole row of homes when up in flames and children were killed

    For many whites the experiences with blacks has not been a good one.
    I am sure for many blacks they have met the same problems with whites

  7. myiq2xu says:

    City Paper:

    There’s also an n-word dropping old white guy named John who complains about “when blacks from the South with chips on their shoulders…moved North.” Huber does not endeavor to explain where John’s white neighbors went (to the suburbs) or why black people moved to Philly as part of the great migration (Jim Crow terrorism, the collapse of the Southern agricultural economy, and booming war-time industrial production).

    Which brings me to: Huber incorrectly dates “white flight” to the 1964 North Philly riots, rendering a city that was just 20-percent black in 1950 44-percent black today.

    I know this article is not about “journalism” or, really, “facts,” but if Huber had consulted a history book he might well have learned that most well-paying blue and white collar jobs were long denied to blacks here and elsewhere. And he would have understood that white people and good-paying jobs began leaving Philadelphia well before the riots thanks to the federal government subsidizing, through new roads and whites-only mortgages, their relocation to suburbs like Levittown. Levittown construction began in 1952, and blacks were explicitly denied entry.

    Blacks finally got a foothold into American industry right as it began to move elsewhere. Black unemployment, concentrated in a segregated ghetto that expanded as whites took their federally-funded middle class welfare in the suburbs, skyrocketed.

    The article, in fact, is not really about “white people” at all. It is, save for n-word dropping John, about rich and middle class white people. Philadelphia Magazine in 2011 declared Mummers “10 Things We Need To Get Rid Of” not so much, I think, because some mummers do or say racist shit. And I’m guessing Huber would probably be just as flummoxed by working class or poor whites on the other side of Front Street. These are whites that might say horrible things about blacks but who, unlike middle and upper class whites, felt they had to compete for evermore scarce resources in a declining city. Racial violence flared in Philadelphia’s racial borderlands, from Kensington to Grays Ferry, through the 1990s. In 1985, whites in Southwest Philadelphia demonstrated against a black family moving in. The house was later burned.

    In 2011, Mayor Michael Nutter grabbed national attention when he criticized black fathers for being mere “sperm donors” and chided young people for letting the “crack of your butt” show. He told black youth, “you’ve damaged your own race.”

    Such sermons, of course, appeal to a line of black self-help conservatism and nationalism that stretches from Booker T. Washington to Louis Farrakhan. But some white people have long met such intraracial put-downs and, especially those delivered by the far-more-palatable-to-whites-than-Farrakhan Bill Cosby, with undisguised glee.

    As Inquirer columnist Annette John-Hall wrote: Nutter “said it. In a way that his white constituents would hear him loud and clear. At that point, he wasn’t talking to black people anymore. Nutter expressed in no uncertain terms the sentiment that so often shackles black people – that the unlawful actions of a few smear everyone else. Something whites never have to fear. Just as they never have to live up to the expectation of being a credit to their race. Whatever that means.”

    Indeed, a post titled “You’ve Damaged Your Own Race’: Philly Mayor Blasts Teens, Flash Mobs” went viral on Glenn Beck’s website.

    • wmcb says:

      Nutter expressed in no uncertain terms the sentiment that so often shackles black people – that the unlawful actions of a few smear everyone else. Something whites never have to fear.

      Bullshit. The racist actions of a few smear the rest of us. And we live with that fear every day. And as myiq pointed out, it’s like living in fear of being thought a pedophile.

      And while it’s not nearly the same, I do have to live with the expectation of being a credit to my regional upbringing. The moment anyone hears my accent, I pretty much have to prove that I’m not a backward uneducated hick like “the rest of them”.

      Look, I am not comparing disadvantage here, or calling it equal. That’s just dumb. The world is full of all sorts of combinations of advantage/disadvantage that one is born into. It’s reality. You could spend all day asking whether the white son of a methhead trailerpark whore is more or less advantaged than the black son of lawyers. And?

      In the end, it’s a moot point. What is more productive – carefully charting and obsessing over all the relative advatages, in a futile attempt to imagine an utterly homogenous beginning point for all? Or gettting to work making sure people can and should succeed regardless of where they start?

  8. DandyTiger says:

    Great series of articles and discussion. They should be applauded and help discussions. It’s sad to see the pushback insuring no discussion happens. Perhaps open discussions would threaten certain politicians or special interest groups with their efforts of fear and hate and dependency.

  9. Hmmm- apparently I screwed up the log in and now I am in Spam and have no powers to spring myself! Help please!

  10. wmcb says:

    Guilt and blame are both crippling emotions. Relationships that are chock full of them are always failed, uncomfortable relationships. Always. That is an observable fact.

    So I’m not sure why the idiots think that basing relationships in the aggregate almost entirely on those two emotions is going to be a big win for anyone involved. But that is precisely what Critical Race Theory, or Critical Gender Theory, demands we all do. Oh they can dress it up with talk of privilege, awareness, whatever, but when the rubber meets the road they are talking about being constantly aware of one side’s guilt for being white, male, whatever.

    You know what? No. Just no. It’s unhealthy for all parties concerned. And it is demonstrably failing as an approach. In my lifetime, I have seen relationships between races, between genders, improve massively when it was about righting real wrongs. But once it became about demanding/paying an endless emotional debt for a never-expiable “privilege”, things began to go downhill again.

    So, no. I reject all of the “privilege” theories and approaches. Whether on one side as a white person, or the other side as a woman. Not because there isn’t some grain of truth to the idea men/white people have certain advantages, but because that relentless focus is a fucking unhealthy way to conduct and build relationships for real live human beings.

    I’m not a PhD, but I’m not an idiot. I will no longer check my own common sense and observation of human nature at the door to someone who has credentials. Your theory is a crock of shit. Demonstrably so.

    Ladies, don’t talk to me about male privilege and being oppressed unless you can point me to an actual man who has just now done something actually bad to you – something which can be addressed and remedied in the real world, with real live actions. And specify what those actions are in concrete, attainable terms, or STFU.

    Same goes for race. Specify the offense, the guilty party, and the remedy, in REAL concrete, practical, doable action, or go away.

    • Underwhelmed says:

      +1000!

    • DeniseVB says:

      Indeed. I’ve become desensitized too. I think the Dancing Vaginas did me in.

      • wmcb says:

        Yeah, the human vagina puppets were a real jump the shark moment for feminism. And I’m not advocating never discussing/doing anything about sexism or racism ever again. Of course not.

        But let’s stick to realityville, not this inchoate wallowing in the oppressedness of the oppressing miasmas and bad societal invisible swamp humors, mmkay?

        • DeniseVB says:

          It’s a PETA PR trick, whatever gets them noticed I guess. While I was never invited to do “I’d rather go naked than wear fur”, snork, that campaign led people to the horrific mistreatment of animals (anal electrocution) in the fur industry. Too bad dancing va-jay-jay’s didn’t lead to the horrific treatment of women under Sharia Law, where women are executed for being raped <—-because it's their fault !

          My worry is that Sharia is happening here now (dad's killing their daughters, beheadings, ad nauseum in the name of religion and "honor"), but in the US courts, it's being challenged in the name of Allah or someone? Think Fort Hood Shooter guy…….creeps me out!

  11. Underwhelmed says:

    It’s very sad. It’s also the same response you get from the feminist bloc when you attempt to have an honest discussion about the interface between responsible personal behaviour/risky behaviour in the incidents of sexual assault. You can’t have that discussion, because any attempt to suggest that women should be encouraged to behave mindfully means you’re victim blaming. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Sexual assault is never okay, but sometimes women engage in risky behaviours that increase their chances of getting into trouble. Not every time, but sometimes. And if we can’t even say to women, for example, hey, drinking and drugging in unfamiliar mixed company isn’t a safe thing to do, in fact it’s downright silly and dangerous, then where are we?

    So yeah. Nutter’s threatening response/behaviour is not useful. In fact, it’s explicitly designed to shut everyone up so the victim card can be kept in currency. Because God forbid anyone should ever be asked to accept even a little personal responsibility.

    • wmcb says:

      It’s partly because we seem to have gotten the weird idea that the moral realm is the only realm that exists. But it isn’t. There is also the practical reality realm. From a moral standpoint, nothing a woman does is an excuse for a man to rape. NOTHING. I’m not disputing that. From a practical standpoint, there are things that make it more likely.

      We have reached a strange place where blamelessness in juxtaposition to some oppressive evil is seen as the personal ultimate good, the thing to be striven for and a status to be protected above all else. In the case of rape, it has become more important to remain blameless in society’s eyes than to actually NOT get raped. Which is fucked the hell up.

      Blamelessness is the new “purity” in this bizarre world we have created with the endless drumbeat of the victim/oppressor dichotomy. To the point that people are doing/saying really stupid shit and behaving with all the hysteria that Victorians applied when purity, not blamelessness, was the ideal state.

      • Underwhelmed says:

        Yeah. At the end of the day, while in theory every woman should be safe to walk everywhere naked and be left alone, even if she’s drunk and/or stoned, and should be able to do that without fear of molestation — this is not a theoretical world. Some shit you do puts you in great personal danger. ANd the fact that it shouldn’t means zip. Instead the work should be going into making it unacceptable on every conceivable level that such a woman would be molested. But since that’s never going to happen, common sense must prevail. And likewise, any woman falsely accusing a man of rape or sexual abuse should be slammed flat, without mercy. Because all that does it make it impossible for the actual victims to receive justice.

        As for the race stuff — I don’t know. The whole situation seems intractable. And what revolts me the most is the umitigated racist sewage spewing from the left if a non-white conservative dares to speak up. I swear. there’s a special circle in hell for the vile progs who do that.

        • wmcb says:

          I want a world where a woman can walk naked down any street. I also want a world where I never have to lock a door, and can leave my purse in full sight on the seat of my unlocked car, with the keys in it.

          Until we get it, I am not sacrificing my daughters on the altar of “let’s pretend that world already exists, so we can say, if she’s raped, that it wasn’t her fault.” Well OF COURSE it wasn’t her fault, dipshit. But she still got raped, and that part is kind of important. So yay for your fucking vision of the world that ought to be. In the meantime, my daughters get mace and guns.

  12. HELENK says:

    there is a school in Philadelphia that was started way back when in the early 1800s by Stephen Girard. It was a school for fatherless white boys. Remember this was the colonial times when this was started. In his will he funded the school. In the 1960s there were protests over the idea of it only being for fatherless white boys, They broke the will and blacks were included. None went because to go there the social security payments for the boys were to be turned over to the school to help pay for the boys upkeep. they lived there and went to school there.

  13. HELENK says:

    please understand something, I have worked with black, white, asian, armerican indian people of various religions and gotten along fine
    I have worked shift work with black and other women who had the same goals as I did to make it better for their kids.

    there is good, bad and ugly in all races and creeds

    when Farakhan had his million man march, some black women that I worked with came to me telling how wonderful he was. Me being me told them that i would send him a set of black sheets. The shocked looks were priceless, how could I compare him to the klan. easy

    the klan hates jews – catholics and blacks

    farakhan hates jews – catholics and whites

    both sides would shoot me I am catholic

    hate is hate whether it comes from the whites or the blacks and assholes come in all colors

  14. DandyTiger says:

    From the article posted by WMCB on the previous thread. Love this:

    The Left’s 20 Rules of Racism:
    1. If you believe that general intelligence exists, is heritable and at all testable for, you’re a racist.
    2. If you point out that liberal philosophies and programs intended to have a good impact have had a disproportionately bad impact on the ethnicities targeted by liberals, you’re a racist.
    3. If you notice that other cultures have some problems, you’re a racist.
    4. If you notice your own culture has had some successes, you’re a racist.
    5. If you try to identify subcultural problems, you’re a racist. If the problems existed or got worse under liberalism, see item 2, above.
    6. If you’re mainstream American culture, and don’t hate that culture, you’re a racist.
    7. If you’re capable of noting unpleasant facts about subcultures and discussing them without your brain fogging, you’re a racist.
    8. If you won’t kowtow and grovel as soon as someone accuses you of racism for one of the reasons above or below, you’re a hopeless racist.
    9. If you do not believe that mankind is a tabula rasa for liberals to make whatever they think would be good to make of man, this week, you’re a racist.
    10. If you don’t take personal responsibility for all the evils of slavery, you’re a racist. This is true even if you only arrived from Poland last week.
    11. If you’re white, you’re a racist.
    12. If you’re white and just arrived from Poland last week and don’t accept that you’re a racist, you’re a racist.
    13. If you try to interject logical thought into a discussion of culture, you’re a racist.
    14. If you refuse to admit culture is a racial matter, and a liberal wants to conflate the two, you’re a racist.
    15. If you believe that race and culture are indistinguishable and a liberal decides that you shouldn’t conflate the two, you’re a racist.
    16. If you believe that black or Hispanic girls who are paid by liberal inspired programs from the age of 13 to have babies will have babies, you’re a racist.
    17. If you believe that _any_ girls of whatever color who are paid to have babies will then have babies but then, insensitively, observe that a smaller percentage of white girls do, certainly because they haven’t been targeted for as much “help” from liberals, you’re a racist.
    18. If it doesn’t bother you that the truth offends liberals, you’re a racist.
    19. If your name is Tom Kratman and you write and in your writing your heroes and heroines tend to be from minorities while your villains are white liberals, you’re still a racist.
    20. If you read The Bell Curve, you’re a racist. On the other hand, if you didn’t read it but wrote a scathing review on Amazon anyway you might not be a racist provided you take personal responsibility for 300 years of slavery even if you just arrived from Poland last week.

  15. votermom says:

    I read that Being White in Philly article around a week ago, I think. iirc I thought it was a bit bland and wussy-ish. So I am once again surprised at the backlash.
    Philly is where Temple students get invaded in their apartments & duct-taped, where a 5yo got kidnapped from her classroom by a woman dressed in a burka, and crime is so abundant you get a guide to crime guides.
    http://criminallaw.philadelphiacriminallawyernow.com/2013/02/philly-crime-statistics-visualization-tools.html

    • dm says:

      My daughter, who was home on spring break from Temple this past week, told me the story of the girl who was attacked on her doorstep, forced into her apartment, tied up with her two roommates and robbed…by 3 black guys. She lives two blocks away from my daughter. We had a frank discussion about the problems…no jobs, no parents, drugs, thug culture. Every time I go to my daughters, I shudder with revulsion. It is really the armpit of the city. What is sad, is my daughter loves Philly…but she admitted that she now feels like living there has made her a racist. She has never done a thing in her life to justify that feeling…it’s one thing to be called a racist for criticizing Obama when you’re 57 years old…I can handle it, I don’t really care. But when you’re not even 20 years old and your dreams are right there within reach…that is a sad thing to me.

      BTW, I have armed my daughter with everything defensive short of a gun – which I would have done if I felt she could get away with it.

      Mayor Nutter should be thankful that my money is being funneled into his city…Temple should do more about security concerns – god knows they charge enough tuition.

      This kind of shit happens everywhere, but I honestly can’t wait for her to graduate.

    • TorchWood says:

      Read the article too and thought he sugar-coated in a few areas. Is there a race problem in Philadelphia? Abso-fracking-lutely. Do the whites in Philadelphia experience racism from blacks? Abso-fracking-lutely!!!! Have I experienced it first hand? Abso-fracking-lutely!!!

      While I have to admit that it’s gotten better, I still compare Philadelphia to Detroit in some areas and this is one of them. Mr. Nutter should spare me his faux outrage and get back to work on selling his budget/property tax hike.

      -19130-

  16. DandyTiger says:

    And the same guy also has:

    The Right’s Twenty Rules of Racism:
    1. Anyone responsible for three hundred years of slavery would have to be a lot older than you and me.
    2. There has to be some genetics in “racism’s” DNA, some DNA in its gene pool, or it just isn’t racism.
    3. Racism could be eliminated in the United States if we could just eliminate the white liberals who so plainly depend on it so much and do so much to keep it going.
    4. Reality isn’t racist: The reality is that there are pond-scummy gallows bait in every group. Some of those will be more of a problem to their own group than to you (see Rule 14, below). Some will be more of a problem to you precisely because you’re not a member of their group. It is wise, not racist, to avoid the latter. In Boston, this may be referred to as the “Evelyn Wagler-George Pratt Rule,” and that’s not code. Odd exception to half of Rule 4: Jesse Jackson would much rather be followed by a white on the streets of DC, at night, than a black.
    5. There have been two instances in recent history where the concept of “honorary white” held sway. One was in apartheid South Africa where, for example, Japanese were considered “honorary white.” The other was when, in relation to the Trayvon Martin shooting, the American mainstream media made Hispanic George Zimmerman an “honorary white.” This is not entirely coincidence since (see Rule 18) the very liberal American media is as racist in their way as ever the Afrikaner Broederbond was in its.
    6. Nobody really thinks whites are as evil as portrayed by white liberals and black demagogues. If they really thought so, they’d be too afraid to ever leave the house, since a) there are a lot more whites, b) those whites are much better armed, c) they’re more likely to be veterans of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ ground gaining combat arms, and d) they have an historically demonstrated cultural aptitude for mass, organized violence.
    7. People who insist you’re speaking in code insist on it because they believe it’s true. They believe it’s true because they really do speak in code and can’t imagine anyone who does not speak in code. It’s not racist to think those people are idiots, nor to note that they’re mostly white. (Exception to rule: When conservatives talk about guns and zombies? Especially in terms of using the former to kill the latter? Yeah; “zombie” is code for “liberals of any color.” See Rule 6, above.)
    8. It’s not racist to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of slavery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.
    9. Speaking of slavery, the bulk of slave raiding and trading in Africa was black, usually Islamic black (see Rule 16, below), on black. The Arabic word for black and slave is the same, “Abd.” And the first registered slave owner in Virginia was black. Pointing this out to liberals, white and black, is always fun.
    10. It’s not racist to wish that our first black president had been Thomas Sowell.
    11. The “Some of my best friends” defense against a charge of racism is no defense…unless it happens to be true. Sometimes it’s best expressed to a white liberal as, “You don’t have so much as a day in uniform, do you, dipshit?”
    12. The system of education that white liberals have inflicted on inner city blacks is a crime against humanity. No amount of money that they toss at it helps to overcome the elimination of discipline liberalism has caused. It’s neither racist to note this…nor wrong.
    13. The various college and university minority “studies” programs, because they give a useless pseudo-education, and at very high cost in both money and time, are racist in their effects.
    14. Most black crime is black on black crime. It is racist in its effects to deprive the black community of the social good that comes from executing black criminals that prey on other blacks.
    15. It takes a white liberal idiot (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) not to understand the difference between casual sex with a member of another race and marrying and investing one’s entire reproductive effort in a member of another race. […] Dipshits.
    16. Islam is not a race. Detesting Islam is not racist. There is nothing in Islam which genetically compels either slightly tanned Palestinians or totally white English reverts to pray toward Mecca five times daily, to self-detonate in crowded squares and movie theaters, to find offense in just about everything, nor even to clitorectomize their women. Flash alert: Lysenko was wrong. Dipshits.
    17. When a liberal accuses you of racism, rejoice; it means the dipshit knows he or she is losing.
    18. The worst racists are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that blacks and hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance. (That this also keeps a lot of liberal white social workers and bureaucrats employed is, of course, merely incidental. Ahem. Dipshits.)
    19. There was a conservative argument for a kind of affirmative action. Unfortunately, all the money’s already been spent on employing white liberal social workers and bureaucrats, and we’re broke now, so that ship has sailed. Again, blame dipshit white liberals.
    20. Screaming “Racism! Raaaacissssm!” on the part of a white liberal, when the matter in question has no DNA in its gene pool, no genetics in its DNA (see Rule 2, above), is the surest proof that said white liberal is genetically defective. And a dipshit. And it’s not racist to point this out.

    • votermom says:

      I saw those – you beat me to it. I’m going to try out his books – Caliphate looks interesting.

    • wmcb says:

      Regarding number 15, some background:

      The author has been married to a woman of color for a many decades. They have children. On a few occasions, when he has futilely pointed this out to some lefty yelling “Raaaaaciiiist!” at him, he gets the old “well white slave masters slept with black women too!”

      Um, derp. Not the same, moron.

      • DandyTiger says:

        Sad isn’t it. There is actually no arguing, no critical thinking, no real “human behavior” going on with some of these people. We’ve sadly seen that since 2007. What was the expression within the FB discussion, monkeys flinging poo. Yep, that about sums it up.

  17. DandyTiger says:

    The same guy quoted above also include:

    Mark Steyn said it spendidly, as he usually does: “I hate to bring up other “mid-century notions” but intellectual diversity on the left is increasingly indistinguishable from Tupperware night with the Stepford Wives. “

    Ouch. And I’m liberal leaning and still have to agree. Sad.

  18. votermom says:

  19. votermom says:

  20. DandyTiger says:

    Turdblossom has been making the usual TV rounds blasting Palin. All because she made a little joke about the “architect[s]” in her speech, and generally about the pundit/consulting class. I think his feeewings were hurt.

  21. DandyTiger says:

    I’m totally loving “Welcome to Myrtle Manor”. I think I just might be a redneck. And yes, I once lived in a trailer park too. What?

  22. votermom says:

  23. Thanks to whoever rescued me from Spam – I should have used a swear word!

  24. yttik says:

    “On one level, such self-consciousness and hypersensitivity can be seen as progress when it comes to race, a sign of how much attitudes have shifted for the better, a symbol of our desire for things to be better. And yet, lately I’ve come to fear that the opposite might also be true: that our carefulness is, in fact, at the heart of the problem…”

    Amen to that! It’s a great article. Well done.

    It’s actually incredibly difficult to be around people who are walking on eggshells, making everything about race. It others you, it makes you somebody different, and they’re going to make sure you don’t ever forget it.

    • wmcb says:

      This is why I more and more ask the question: “Who benefits?”

      It was pretty much inarguably true that in 1956, the white community solely, truly benefitted from racism. But is that still true?

      Not really. Racist has become such a socially pariah thing to be, that white people as a whole can really see no benefit in being racist. There’s no advantage in it, or not that much of one. So why would they continue? What advantage would they gain now by keeping the black man down? What’s the benefit to them?

      On the other hand, one can point to very real benefit to certain parties and organizations and social justice apparatchiks who have a very clear interest in seeing that racism, or at least the perception thereof, continues as before.

      WHO, in today’s society, gets the greatest and most obvious benefit from race disparities existing, and never ever being mostly eradicated? Who cleans up from it – in votes, in dollars, in power? It’s not white people as a whole, nor is it black people as a whole.

      Want to know who is mostly driving something? Ask yourself “Who benefits?”

      • myiq2xu says:

        “Follow the money”

        • SHV says:

          The Street Theater production call “SNAP”…Who benefit from the $71 billion/year food stamp program…The narrative is “welfare freeloaders vs Rethugs want to starve children.” Certainly the people who are buying frozen pizzas, sugar cereals, etc derive some short term benefit but the real financial winners are the usual suspects in the food bidness.

          “Food Stamp Inc.: How SNAP Benefits Enrich Crony Capitalists”

          http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/19/food-stamps-inc

          It seems that every “social” program has turned into a crony capitalism money laundering operation with tax payers footing the bill.

        • wmcb says:

          SHV, this is another aspect that never made sense to me. If the accusation is that it’s all those working/middle class white conservatives that want to keep people poor and on welfare, that’s just nuts.

          Fact: Very very few conservatives wish to eliminate welfare/foodstamps entirely. A minority of hard libertarians do, but the GOP as a whole? Nope. That’s a lie. Most have no problem with it in concept, applied in some reasonable fashion.

          Fact: Many of them do, however, resent and are alarmed by the sheer number of recipients exerting greater and greater pull on their wallets.

          Granting those two facts, what course of action would be most to their advantage? Oppressing people and keeping them in slums and on foodstamps, or seeing them become working productive citizens with jobs and grocery money, and thus less of a drain on working class taxes?

          Given the realities, it is nearly impossible to postulate that it is the white working class conservative who is hell bent on keeping poor people poor. That is, it’s impossible UNLESS you also postulate that they are so consumed with hateful hateful truly evil racism and classism that it just overwhelms what would otherwise be their tendency to act in their own self-interest.

          This is, IMO, one of the reasons that the Left and their crony backers are so insistent on painting just that sort of extreme view of bitter clingers. They must so postulate. Because A cannot be true unless B is also true. And they very much need for A to be true, because otherwise the whole misdirection fails, and people start looking for in whose self-interest it truly is to have a permanent underclass.

        • wmcb says:

          And BTW, I am very much encouraged at the “new conservatarian” voters/activists on the quasi-GOP side, and their willingness to look hard at the broken system, and call out the crony capitalism as well as the crony statism. Palin is one of them. The Breitbart people are others.

          It remains to be seen whether they will continue to stick to their principles if the DC power balance once again shifts R. The rank and file D voters/activists have utterly failed that test. We’ll see what the populists on the other side do when tested.

  25. HELENK says:

    I did not realize until I got older what great teachers I had in school.
    We had a discussion on prejudice. How it increases the more two sides become equal. Both sides competing for the same jobs, the same homes, the same schools.
    As long as one side is in the majoritiy there will be less prejudice because there is less competition. The seems to be holding true. the feelings of whites victimized by affirmation action will never change. the feelings of blacks victimized by segregation will never change.

  26. foxyladi14 says:

    The Rev Jesse and Sharpton have benefited greatly from it 😦

  27. HELENK says:

    I was about 5 years old and we lived in Tampa Fla due to my dad being stationed there before going over seas. At that time if I and my mother ( being white) were walking on the sidewalk and a black person came towards them, the black person would have to move off the sidewalk so we could go by. i remember my mom saying ” how stupid, they have black wet nurses for their babies and then they have to get off a sidewalk. Can you tell my mom was from the north.
    That was my first lesson on racism. It is stupid

  28. SHV says:

    “Fact: Very very few conservatives wish to eliminate welfare/foodstamps entirely. A minority of hard libertarians do, but the GOP as a whole? Nope. That’s a lie. Most have no problem with it in concept, applied in some reasonable fashion.

    Fact: Many of them do, however, resent and are alarmed by the sheer number of recipients exerting greater and greater pull on their wallets.”
    ********
    For the elected “officials” either local or Congress, it seems that political philosophy is an act; I can’t tell much difference between Liberal or Conservative when it comes to dividing up the money.

    Monsanto, Pepsi, Coke, Tyson’s, Wal-Mart, etc. are probably giving more money to the Republicans then the Dems. to keep the corporate welfare expanding. Maybe some of the Republican “new blood’ will start calling bullshit on the status quo; best that I can tell, the Dem. Party has been so purged that there aren’t any honest ones left.

Comments are closed.