https://www.amazon.com/Sundown-Towns-Hidden-Dimension-Americ...
My hazy understanding of American racism, which I now know to be wrong, was that it's always been getting better. Sure, slavery, but then the Civil War and an upward climb from there to the Civil Rights era and beyond. Except for the South, I thought.
It turns out the US had period after Reconstruction, know as the Nadir [1], when anti-black sentiment and action grew significantly. A wave of ethnic cleansing circa 1890-1920 led to a lot of all-white towns all over the country, ones where non-whites weren't allowed after dark. (Thus the title of the book.)
Chapter 11, "The Effect of Sundown Towns on Whites", talks a lot about how growing up in white-only areas leads white people to have enormously distorted perceptions of the dangers of black people. After reading that chapter, the RacistDoor phenomenon made a lot more sense to me.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=the...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1886754.The_Trouble_They...
Racism and, more importantly, white supremacy is an all-American concept which seems to be inextricably woven through the whole society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/ - highly recommend this.
In the Rocky Mountain region that I was in (and that I was born in), there was no history of slavery or any sort of modern diversity (it was all coal-miners, oil-drillers, and ranchers all the time), so I think we can take that one off the table. As we can Japan - because their issues with racism are different from ours (in the US).
That leaves good old Yankee-land and "the South". I am by birth and by culture, not a Southerner, but I will declare that if anyone sees more racism in Shreveport LA (for example) than they do in Chicago or even Terre Haute IN, that is a person that I would assert has never been to the south. I believe generally (based on a whole lotta anecdotal observation - some of which are turning my aging locks white), that Y2K Yankee-land is far more racist than Y2K Dixie. I don't know what it was like in 1960 - the race riots of Detroit in '68 - white flight to the suburbs - any of that. But I do believe that you are giving your own region a pass and the south a diss if you believe that they are more racist than you.
EDIT: And it isn't necessarily germane to my parent comment, but I see a lot of use of the phrase "dog-whistle" with no specifics. Can we see more specifics, so that the lesser aware of us can know what you are even talking about, or even get educated on what constitutes a "dog-whistle"?
This was definitely a lesson I learned. I grew up in the midwest, and because racism of the Jim Crow sort was more blatant in the south, I thought we were relatively innocent. But I no longer think that.
As an example, I got a reproduction of the Negro Motorist Green Book. [1] It was a good exercise trying to imagine planning one of the road trips I've been on, but only staying at the small number of places that would accept black people.
I also learned from that book that there was one town in Michigan where well-off black people went to vacation: Idlewild. [2] It was created because black people in Chicago and Detroit were excluded from other vacation spots. I grew up not far from this place and nobody ever mentioned the history to me. Not accidental, I'm sure, that white people forgot all about it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book
"Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup."
Lingua Franca had an interesting example recently - http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/09/28/the-s...
“The man should be in a pub on the banks of the Liffey.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Power_Mixtape_1967...
I believe it's available on Netflix.
Quick, let's do some free association and tell me the first skin color that comes to mind: thugs, real americans, inner-city youth, hard-working american, welfare queen, illegal immigrant.
If so, then, alright, the only thing on your list that makes me think of somebody that might be darker beige than me (I assume this is where you are trying to go?) is illegal immigrant, where I do assume "Mexican born national". Is that racist, or just a recognition of how our borders go and the fact that few Canadians come to the US to pick our tomatoes?
No, "dog-whistle" terms seem mundane and can be played off as having the dictionary definition, but to certain people they have a very specific meaning. Your neighbor might say he wants to keep "thugs" out of your neighborhood, which you can naively infer to mean "violent criminals," but to other racists it's a synonym for "niggers." Or maybe you do know what he means, so you call him on it... and he asserts that it just means "violent criminals." That's what makes a dog-whistle.
I see enough references to the phrase (like: "everyone knows this is a dog-whistle for xyz") that I started to wonder if that phrase wasn't in itself, in certain contexts, a form of virtue-signaling itself. Maybe I was wrong.
Q: How is it that all the anti-racists know all the code-words that make up a dog whistle for racists? Isn't it supposed to be, by definition, unhearable?
Or with "saying the quiet parts loud", where people who aren't as good at dog whistling drift into being more explicit. Or people who are explicit get pushed into saying things where the racial connection is more easily denied. The Trump administration's Muslim ban is good example of that. They started out advocating for a ban with strong religious and racial components. When the public and the courts said no, they iterated to something less blatant. They will keep rinsing and repeating until something gets through.
To contrast, I used to have a couple of friends who would use the term "friend" as a stand in for n* when talking about people in public. I figured it out from being around them and hearing how they stressed it differently than normal, but any random stranger wouldn't have picked up on it.
No, I am saying the phrase is meant to be interpreted in a racial context by the target audience while passing off as non-racial. Non of the phrases I listed are racial by the dictionary definition.
The difference between a dog-whistle and a regular whistle is that dog-whistles are inaudible to humans and go unnoticed, hence the "dog-whistle" tag for such coded language.
Racism and, more importantly, white supremacy is an all-American concept
This is ridiculously narrow conception of slavery and racism. Slavery is neither "American" nor "white" - it's an insidious and evil institution that has been imposed on a wide number of people and races, even during the American/European slave period.
An even larger African slave trade existed in the Middle East and North Africa. Even the word "Slave" is derived from "Slav" - my people - who were enslaved by Spanish Muslims. In fact, slavery still exists and thrives in parts of Sudan and Benin today. Not the mention the massive amounts of slaves that existed in South East Asia or the fact that slavery was an established institution in the Americas much before Europeans came here.
There were more slaves in India than there were in the entire western-hemisphere. China had slavery as recently as 1949 (they didn't outlaw it until 1910) and was recently embroiled in a slave controversy in 2007! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_slave_scandal)
In fact, it's Western-European society that has largely been critical of slavery, as they were the first nations to outlaw it (Denmark and Britain), and have organized against Slavery while many countries around the world were still practicing slavery (see the 1926 Slavery Convention held by the League of Nations)
He was talking about white supremacy, not slavery. And the phrase "all-American concept" does not mean that America invented it. He means that it's intrinsic, pervasive.
Which is pretty obviously true. America was white supremacist from the get-go. If not, we wouldn't have needed the 15th amendment, which came circa a century late. We wouldn't have needed 8 different civil rights acts (so far). The notion of whiteness is something America helped create and is continually redefining so as to help maintain white supremacy.
I'd urge you to reconsider the way you view sources and the media.
"Coates is unabashedly biased and not a great source."
This is a non-sequitur and a misdirection tactic commonly used by people who want to try and discredit arguments without actually achieving anything of the sort. Much like you've done.
"Bias" is not an issue. Legitimacy is. Can we trust Coates writing about race? The question really expands to, can we trust an erudite and eloquent black man with a lot of lived experience, to contextualize and write about that experience? I don't see why we shouldn't. I imagine both of us have much less to offer the debate than Coates, so why not trust Coates?
And there's nothing rigorous about the piece linked.
Worth noting that the U.S. population has grown significantly since 1850. I'd be more interested in the relative numbers (e.g. the percentage of black men incarcerated today v. the percentage enslaved before 1850).
If you want straight-up hard numbers, I can't recommend any resource more then DrugWarFacts:
I'm sure The Stranger will have a field day if anyone actually gets kicked off because of this "don't share with the media" position. And if NextDoor think that media folks aren't already embedded, in every neighborhood group, so they can have access to the kinda-racist goings-on of the platform, they are surely mistaken!
> If you don't live in Capitol Hill or Pioneer Square (which face
> issues of rapid gentrification and homelessness), the
> local crime stats show that you are vanishingly
> unlikely to be facing even property crime.
In the past five years:
- The strap was cut and a gas can was stolen out of the back of my truck, a week after I got it.
- A chair was stolen from our front porch.
- My wife's car was broken into and her ancient iPod stolen.
- Someone climbed our fence and was wandering around in our backyard before a neighbor scared them off.
We would have certainly had lots of packages stolen too, but we simply don't ship things to our house unless we know we will be home. In addition to those direct crimes against us, we've experienced fun things like:
- Countless RVs illegally parked all around the neighborhood.
- People leaving literal piles of trash behind when they relocate their RV
- People dumping their sewage waste on the road when they relocate their RV.
- RVs catching on fire.
- Someone shitting on the street.
- Another person shitting in our alley.
- A neighbor found a gun in their bushes.
- Needles left on the ground in our yard. (We taught the kids not to touch them.)
- Screaming fights in the middle of the night.
- Homeless people using the port-o-potty painters placed in our front yard. (We put a lock on it after that.)
Seattle has a very serious homeless/drug addict problem and it affects virtually every neighborhood. None of this has anything to do with race, of course, but property crime and the other knock-on effects caused by a large homeless heroin/meth addict population are rampant.
This makes it sound like we live in the same area (Rainier Valley). Property crime is definitely a thing here and gun crime has been consistent - though limited - in the Columbia City area.
Pioneer Square is also a different animal since it is highly commercial and not residential.
Regardless, the Rainier Valley has plenty of crime. I've had my car stolen, my car broken into, and a townhome next to mine being burgled in the few years I've been down here.
We are, of course, undergoing rapid gentrification as well.
First, I'm not sure I believe your numbers to begin with. Is there a source?
Second, a huge issue is racism in law and police policies (not necessarily in individual cops) - crime statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt. The numbers reflect what the police and courts do, not what people do- they're related of course, but there's a bias.
Homicides are one way to dis-entangle this (in jurisdictions not prone to To Kill A Mockingbird asshattery). It's objective as to when it happens. And our courts are relatively better, at least in the post-DNA era, about due process when it comes to such crimes.
It appears blacks committed 52.2% of homicides from 1976 through 2005 while representing 12.3% of the population [1]. The 2013 statistic for "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" arrests of blacks is also 52.2% [2]. That said, (a) arrest does not mean conviction and (b) we decided long ago, and rightfully so, that projecting population characteristics onto someone who did not choose to be a member of that population is morally wrong and therefore, oftentimes, illegal.
[1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf page 12
[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
We can take this further: It should not be compared against the total population, but segmented by traits known to be associated with violent crime, like poverty. But even then, since violence is itself cultural, I'd expect certain area's to be more unsafe than others, despite similar levels of poverty. So we'd need to look at blacks and non-blacks in those specific areas and compare those specific traits. I'm _sure_ someone has done this study, does anyone have enough familiarity with this area to provide some high quality references?
[1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3226953/Sampson_... journal page 377
[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
It appears blacks were victims in 52.3% of homicides while representing 13.3% of the population. [1]
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-hom...
I wouldn't call it racism, but it is other-ism, and it comes from all corners. This person doesn't look like he belongs in our neighborhood -- often it's more about social economic / class -- what vehicle they're driving, how they're dressed, are they a race that doesn't typically live in our mostly diverse neighborhood.
We have a lot of burglaries and it just drives up the paranoia.
I haven't noticed overt racism on ND as much as crotchetiness, though. A lot of complaints about the local ice cream truck, for example, and about the number of camper vans parked along certain roads that people are using as housing.
However, I did notice that there were a lot of bike parking / bike racks that were awfully missdesigned/overengineered. There were racks that could be opened to put your bike in but many people did not know that so they locked their bike to the rack but when you opened the rack, you could simply slide the lock out. In many cases, the bike was only locked to the rack, which meant you could drive away with the bike without ever picking the lock.
I've made the same mistake for about two weeks, until I noticed that this retarded bike rack mechanism left my bike completely unprotected. Afterwards, I always checked other bikes and I frequently found others that you could just pick up and drive away with.
One of the best, if not the best, bike rack designs is this here: https://www.bikecitizens.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Good...
Very simple design, it can a whole lot of bikes and it's as secure as it can get.
...also combined with a lot of easy pickings: people who don't always lock their windows, don't lock their gates, ...
note I have no idea. just guessing at possibilities
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-offi...
This. They hate "poor white trash" just as much.
Because all that will do is create high school style drama about who's more correct.
But if you want to get into an eternal hate match between your neighbors full of passive aggressive backstabbing, there is no quicker way than to call them out on their causal racism.
Not my direct neighbors, but definitely someone a few streets over. I actually thought that their house was vacant until I received the letter.
The cards you mention fail AVS checks, but with a 'U' code for 'UNAVAILABLE'. Many online sellers will let those sales through. NextDoor likely does not.
You can see some of the possible AVS responses here: https://www.chasepaymentech.com/address_verification_service...
Man, I guess I am not the only one who noticed this. And I live in Sacramento, CA. I am guessing its 10x worse else where.
The first few times you see it, you think, ok whatever, people are just being overly cautious. You might even think it was useful, and you could see yourself reporting such things.
But after like the 10th time you see postings like that, you really start to wonder if this is what racial profiling looks like in practice.
I mean, I know most people in my neighborhood and if I saw a random person walking around I'd certainly keep an eye on them. It's technically a public road so they have every right to be there, but it's a cul-de-sac and super uncommon for non-residents to be walking in our neighborhood so it 100% stands out, regardless of skin tone.
There are lots of people on nextdoor who report things like "a black guy was walking down our street looking into parked cars, he ran away when I opened my door", or "I saw an asian guy digging in my neighbor's recycling bin, I reported him to the police", etc.....
I don't think there's anything wrong with that type of description. I find it very helpful.
I think if you or I were to report something to NextDoor, that's probably what we would do. We would carefully observe, report what we observe, and give reasons for why we think something's off. In fact, you did that in your post by mentioning your "cul-de-sac" and explaining your situation.
What makes me uncomfortable is when I see posts that make no effort to describe the problem, and just go straight to describing the suspect. That to me is an indicator of bias.
I was just curious how someone would address the issue in the way least likely to be misinterpreted as racist really. I mean, if the only strangers that show up in the neighborhood are from a different group than you and you alert on all of them, can you really tell if the person is racist? You can't simple say "mind your own business" to those people. They are just being alert to things going on in their neighborhood, which is prudent. Perhaps they are a little over-zealous, but that's arguably better than letting your neighbor get robbed.
All of the above is assuming the person isn't actually racist. If they are then screw them, they should be ashamed of themselves and ostracization is a perfectly valid response to their behavior.
My family’s safety is more important than some rando’s feelings of acceptance and comfort.
If you witness an assault, yea go ahead.
It's quite unfortunate that we've gotten to a point whereby some rather nebulous terms such as "freedom of movement" ha gotten in the way of crime-prevention.
For all we know, keeping people from committing crimes by removing their ability to would actually keep them honest and force them to improve their lot. Unfortunately, it's an uncomfortable conversation that touches on police-state territory, so we probably won't have it in the public eye any time soon.
I'm sure there are racist idiots posting false stories or such, but that issue you described IS very common. Talk to your region's SDPD Community Liaison about the types of crimes and their occurrence numbers. SDPD will usually be able to give you a good comment on the amount of calls about a certain crime vs the actual number of times they make an arrest for a certain crime.
Are you speaking up when you see these examples of racism?
(Seriously with the downvotes?)
I have been/am involved in three communities, all in the southeast: 1. An upper class neighborhood in a city where whites are a (slim) minority 2. A working class neighborhood in the same city where I seemed to be the only white guy 3. A rural neighborhood where almost everyone is white
I am surprised that people would write such things today, when the perils of doing so with your own name are widely understood.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/racial-profiling-via-...
It's primary audience appears to be "homeowners" (owners from 1-50 years they do not seem to care) who might want to sell their home or are interested in service for their home.
So two years later and I personally still see the almost identical "those people" posts across all of San Francisco. A valiant effort but without serious moderation it is meaningless.
At a certain point mods in the nextdoor community need to either ban people completely which would cuts away at their fantasy ethos or shadow ban people which basically is the same result.
good fences make great neighbors
I thought it was its own category because it's not a form of prejudice, but instead refers to the use of race based statistical reasoning.
I'd rather we keep the line drawn. and not muddy the racist card.
e.g. RacialProfilistDoor is more apt
But the devil is in the details. It’s famously easy to make bad decisions based on “flawless” calculations that simply don’t interpret data right or don’t take all factors into consideration. Statistics is known for this peril even in mundane business situations, but with problems that are controversial, and affect people’s lives, it’s even more perilous.
Here basic profiling would tell me you are male, correct? Did you know people like you commit 99% of murder and violent crime? Can you really blame me for crossing to the other side of the street if I see you walking toward me at night?
In case anyone was curious, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics believes that men are responsible for ~90% of murders and ~80% of violent crime (in the US).
Cross the street! Safety is more important than a stranger’s feelings of acceptance and comfort. This is common sense.
Because if not, this sounds like a fancy way to dress up racial prejudice.
And even if they did, it would be dumb statistics. If I am murdered, it's 80% likely it'll be by a white guy. But that doesn't mean I should just assume all the white guys I meet are probable murderers. It doesn't even mean that I should take precautions around white guys, however dangerous they are to me, because the odds of a given white dude being a murderer is still very low.
As studies and Nextdoor's experience show, people will racially profile strangers entirely in absence of actual experience. Indeed, as I mentioned elsewhere, people from all-white areas are much more likely to profile, and to do it in exaggerated, hysterical fashion, precisely because they have no real basis to form useful inferences about an entire race of people. Racial profiling is mostly just dressed-up tribalist nonsense. And it has been used in the US to kill thousands of black people [1], at least.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Take a look at FBI crime statistics by race and gender sometime. Witnessing a Asian woman committing a property or violent crime is statistically speaking like winning the lottery. If I was to assess the risk of an Asian woman walking down the street I'd rate the risk as lower than any other demographic group, is that racist and sexist?
If you treat people negatively because of their race, yes, that's racist.
There isn't a universal definition of racism, but racial profiling is certainly a historical tool of racists and racist policies.
But still, let's assume you can reliably see this things: sure! It's very reasonable to suspect someone who is acting shady. Because there is likely a reason why they are acting shady. Race doesn't work like that, and that's why it's different. A black person didn't wake up in the morning and decide to dress or act in some way that makes some people suspicious of them. They had no choice in the matter - just simply existing is enough to make you a suspect in some people's eyes.
BUT, if someone who looks very suspicious based on their appearance and behaviour (mannerisms, language, choices of clothes, tattoos, etc) it's normal and dare I say _healthy_ for residential (family type) neighborhoods to be suspicious of them.
If they also happen to be black, they might want to use the race card "OMG You suspect me because I'm black? Racist! How dare You!" etc, but who cares.
I am honestly surprised by the down votes my comment received.
If you let criminals into your neighbourhood because you're scared of being called a racist, something is wrong with you.
I'd say this might be an interesting moment for self-examination. If their primary reaction is outrage then they're probably not a criminal after all. Maybe think again at why you suspected this innocent person of acting shady. Maybe learn from it so you don't make the mistake again.
"who cares" isn't really a very community-minded reaction when you've just accused one of your neighbours of being a criminal.
Also let's keep in mind that this is the safest the world has ever been especially in America meaning statistically if you're assuming someone is up to no good based on their appearance or dress you are almost guaranteed to be wrong.
And, really, "dressing suspiciously" is often bullshit no matter who's involved. As a white kid I got hassled for wearing a trenchcoat, and that was just as stupid as anything else. Adding race into it only makes it worse.
And if you have an issue with (as the parent you agreed with) their language, clothing choices, tattoos, then frankly, you need to do something about it - and "encouraging people to keep a watch on them", calling the police for suspicious behavior (where "suspicious" is this vague hand-wavy synonym for "I don't like them") is not it.
And trying this emotional appeal to "well, my family's safety is more important than some rando's feelings" (your exact words) is BS caging your words. Maybe you should move then? Much as you'd like them to move, and are trying to make it uncomfortable for them to be around. Hint: you have no more right to be there than your neighbors do.
And lest you suggest that maybe I need to be exposed to more mental illness, violence, sociopathy or otherwise, like you say you have, to come to a 'better' understanding / enlightenment, well... I deal with all those things, all the time, working in EMS as well as IT.
Which folks? The ones who dress funny and have tattoos? We don't want you as neighbors either. The difference is that I don't call the cops when I don't like the way my neighbors dress.
I don't know. Are you going to pretend like there are no way for people to act suspicious now?
"Suspicious" is walking up to the front door of your house and checking if it's locked. It's walking into your backyard without permission. It's looking in the windows of your house without permission. It's checking the doors on your car to see if they're unlocked. I'll even grant you that suspicious could be hanging out in a running car in front of an empty house for 30 minutes or so. However, it's not dressing flashy and being loud. (Though feel free to call the cops if they're being super-loud at 1am in a residential area. That's just rude.)
If your definition of "suspicious" includes "this person doesn't act like me" with a dollop of "this person acts like the cartoon black people I see in movies", then you should absolutely be prepared to be called out.
That pretty much just describes teenagers.
People can act suspiciously, sure. But that doesn't mean that behavior is actually correlated with committing a crime.
People are suspicious of a lot of things they shouldn't be. As other people mentioned in this thread, just being black and walking through a white neighborhood will get you plastered all over NextDoor.
Are you going to pretend like most people have an accurate, objective way to determine which behaviors are worthy of suspicion?
They were all white, though. Perhaps it's only the black drug dealers who dress up special, eh?
I.e. Every individual I talk to has a fresh, blank slate with me. Stereotypes and "profiling" only really apply until you start getting a concrete instance of said group, and deal with them in getting "fresh" data that is unique to them.
Civilization in this context being the set of rules and norms that impose restrictions on our behavior in exchange for a improvements in the quality of life for everyone in the community. One of the challenges of parenting is trying to explain to your children "why" they should follow the rules in terms they can understand and relate to.
It should remain with the people to argue with each other and change their views, not with black box magic woven into the communication medium.
I've seen people ask the best way to report black people to the cops so they'll be kept from driving through "our safe neighborhood." It's so full of dog whistles my neighbors dogs bark when I open the app.
The only reason NextDoor is freaking out is because they know there's enough of that sort of material to really cause a mass exodus if it ever escaped the neighborhoods it's posted in.
That said...it's...a weird issue, to be sure. NextDoor tried to encourage an expectation of privacy but like...who actually expects that? Really. Anyone with a credit card matching the address they key in can get in. It's not the post card only thing any more.
I could easily change my billing address on my credit card, sign up for some neighborhood on the west coast, and then change my CC address back. Done.
NextDoor has done nothing to actually secure the neighborhood, so it's not like it means anything to say this to the customers. If anything, the neighborhood members could possibly sue NextDoor for overstating the privacy of their posts.
I guess the conclusion is: I'm not just throwing my hands up and saying, "Oh well it's online no privacy!" I'm more saying this is probably the absolute worst hill to choose to fight that battle on.