Comment by moldbug | Hacker News Reader

Comment by moldbug | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Wow, enlightened white people. We sure are good at patting ourselves on the back, aren't we?

Reality check: in 1962, every American city, north or south, with a substantial black population had a thriving black business district and a commercial middle class. Example: Bronzeville in Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas,_Chicago#Bronzeville

Enlightened white people destroyed these worlds and the people who lived in them. The replacement was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes

In San Francisco those neighborhoods were Third Street and the Fillmore. Pictures of Third Street from the 1950s show fancy cars, fancy clothes, fancy shops, not a white face in sight. Pictures of Third Street today show someone about to sucker-punch the photographer and steal his camera.

In 1962 there were no no-go zones anywhere in America. Today I could walk five miles from my home and be in a place where my life wasn't safe. Black America in 2012:

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/uncensored---video...

Upside: black people can vote. For the same party, every time. For a black (or, well, half-East-African) president whose campaign office looks as white as a Romney family reunion:

http://freebeacon.com/minority-report/

I think the enlightened people of 1962 might be a little incredulous at all the back-patting going on in 2012. Nice job you've done of uplifting black America, 2012. With successes like this, who needs failures?

I don't know how old you are, maybe you've got better info than I do about America in 1962. I wasn't aware of much in 1962, but by the time I could read newspapers in the late 1960s, there very definitely were "no-go zones" for white people in America.

And substantial portions of America were still "no-go zones" for non-white Americans, and had been for generations. You might want to look into the term "sundown town".

In 1962 there were no no-go zones anywhere in America

So long as that group kept to their zone. If they go into that zone, then things might happen. Of course the police would take an interest in that group being in that zone, they must be up to no good!

You're right, of course - I'm glad to be corrected.

What I really meant to say was that in 1962 there were no no-go zones anywhere in America, Crackerjack Peckerwood Creek in the deep back asshole of Alabama where no one without a mullet in a Camaro would want to go anyway excepted. (Alas, in 1962 there were no Camaros either.)

Trust me, I went to high school in Howard County, Maryland, and I would be the last person in the world to speak up for the indigenous American peckerwood. However, I also note that there's a big difference between Peckerwood, Alabama being a no-go zone (if your skin is darker than a bad white zinfandel), and half of Brooklyn being a no-go zone (for any sane person regardless of race, color or creed).

I really don't understand your contention here. You're claiming that integration ruined Brooklyn? Can you explain the mechanism? I don't see how public housing projects (widely regarded as a failure that cities are transitioning away from) have anything to do with segregation (widely regarded as an moral atrocity).

Also, just because there's a lot of black people on the street doesn't mean a neighborhood is dangerous. FYI. (former brooklyn resident).

You're claiming that integration ruined Brooklyn? Can you explain the mechanism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

If you ever actually talk to anyone who was personally involved in the former, and they're being frank, they'll tell you that a primary concern was a rational fear for their physical safety and/or that of their families. Which adds up to the latter. Why do you think there are no Serbs left in Kosovo, or no Albanians in Mitrovica?

E. Michael Jones's Slaughter of Cities (http://www.amazon.com/The-Slaughter-Cities-Renewal-Cleansing...) is a good overview from a j'accuse perspective. For a mainstream author, read J. Anthony Lukas' Common Ground. Better yet, read them both.

Of course we've digressed into the question of harmful effects (of the civil-rights movement) on white people. My original post was mainly concerned with the effect on black people.

Perhaps you've noticed some cultural changes? Are they for the better? If we could sit down together and watch WSHH for an hour, how exactly would we disagree?

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/

> Black America in 2012:http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/uncensored---video...

> If we could sit down together and watch WSHH for an hour, how exactly would we disagree?*

Out of curiosity, do you have any opinions on modern black culture that aren't based on videos you find online?

The worst of everything tends to get my attention - doesn't it get yours?

There are three kinds of blacks in America today - feral, traditional, assimilated. Traditional black people are the nicest people in the world and have the coolest churches. Unfortunately they're all over 50 and have high blood pressure. Assimilated black people are just like white people except for the little box they check when they want to get into Harvard. (Samuel R. Delany's memoir, The Motion of Light in Water, is among other things a wonderful evocation of the old "Jack and Jill" black upper class.) Feral black people need to be rounded up, flex-cuffed, laser de-tattooed, sent to boot camp for three months, and placed in the unconditional custody of traditional black people, who will know exactly what to do with them.

Is that enough stereotypes for you? A stereotype is a pattern you don't want to recognize. I think you'll find you recognize these patterns just fine, however.

The worst of everything tends to get my attention - doesn't it get yours?

No, because I'm not a bigot.

I'm absolutely stunned that your horrific rant hasn't been downvoted into oblivion.

Dr. Johnson defines bigot as:

... a man devoted unreafonably to a certain party; prejudiced in favour of certain opinions; a blind zealot. It is ufed often with to before the object of zeal; as, a bigot to the Cartefian tenets...

I'm pretty sure you're not a bigot to the Cartesian tenets. You do strike me as pretty zealous, though - n'est ce pas?

I am actually quite okay with bigots and bigotry. We can't all embrace change. We don't all have to. One thing is certain, though - if it's not surprising, it's not change. Welcome to the 21st century!

I'm pretty sure you're not a bigot to the Cartesian tenets. You do strike me as pretty zealous, though - n'est ce pas?

I've read some of your comments. You repeatedly misinterpret what people say and throw out presumptuous personal attacks.

You should go through the whole history and downvote, if you've got the time - it will reduce my overall karma.

So, basically, the only no-go areas in 60s USA (for african-americas) were in the middle of nowhere where hardly anyone wanted to go, but now-a-days, the people can't go into half of a large, populous city? I think you might have a rosy eyed view of the past…

You know crime in the USA has actually fallen a lot recently?

Trust me, I'm oddly familiar with the country this used to be. Go back and read some primary sources - there are a lot here:

http://unz.org/

Crime statistics in the USA have actually fallen a lot recently. What's your explanation of this? You didn't by any chance watch The Wire? You don't by any chance read the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/nyregion/no-room-for-disse...

The former captains spoke of an unrelenting, often unethical pressure to manipulate crime statistics. In addition, the professors studied police and health data and found weird divergences. City hospital data shows a 90 percent increase in emergency room visits for assaults from 1999 to 2006. But police data for the same period records a nearly 50 percent decrease in assaults.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodharts_law

You use this phrase "trust me" more than is probably warranted in this circumstance.

> The former captains spoke of an unrelenting, often unethical pressure to manipulate crime statistics. In addition, the professors studied police and health data and found weird divergences. City hospital data shows a 90 percent increase in emergency room visits for assaults from 1999 to 2006. But police data for the same period records a nearly 50 percent decrease in assaults.

A friend offered this: "Clearly the hospitals are just padding their books so it looks like they'll need more funding."

>You know crime in the USA has actually fallen a lot recently?

He's talking about late 50s, early 60s. We're not there yet. (NYC used to be safer than London. Yes, same time.)

The late 60s had a huge crime jump in the US. The 70s were even worse. We're working back from that.

I can't believe this comment. Segregation and poll taxes were no big deal, right? Things were great for black people back when it was enshrined legal doctrine to treat them as a lower category of people.

You want to know why black people vote for the same party every time? Because it's the alternative to your party.

The world is not that simple. Bush had Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, who did Bill Clinton have? Al Sharpton?

Clinton went on Arsenio Hall. He didn't need tokenism.

If you want to claim there's no undercurrent of racism in standard Republican messaging, well, I can't prove it to you. Just know that most black people disagree with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/22/simpsons-mocks-fox-...

I don't know what that means, but the accomplishments of Powell and Rice stand on their own. It is ludicrous to deem them mere tokens. In fact if Bush was a dumb as the haters say, Condi was to all intents and purposes both the first black and the first female President...

Their accomplishments do stand on their own. You were using them as tokens in the above post, and I called it out. A couple of public figures don't undo an entire culture and electoral strategy.

Not at all. Just demonstrating the falseness of the assertion that Republicans don't represent or respect blacks.

Once again: The world is not as simple as that.

Oh, and while I am here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South. In the 19th century, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP)

The 19th century, thanks. Pretty disingenuous. You already know the content of these links before clicking them, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_rights_(speech)

http://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/ (just for fun)

For what it's worth, I don't think President Bush the person was particularly racist. But he was definitely the #1 candidate among racists.

You know a story probably wasn't HN material when you end up discussing racism and recent US presidents:-/

"There were often a few token people who were allowed to stay on in town provisionally: usually, they offered an unusual trade or service that a small town relied on, and were thus granted an exception to the sundown rules."

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-out-sundown-town...

Preface: I'm a white American, with plenty of WASP guilt.

I forget the issue, but an African-American was in the news spewing the standard reprehensible winger talking points.

An African-American coworker of mine said "There's always one", shaking his head in disgust. He probably let his guard down around me, because we got to know each other pretty well and he knew of my political activism (voting issues).

I asked him to explain. He said no matter how stupid or extreme an issue, the white man could always find some black man to voice support.

I'm guessing that "there's always one" is a cliche in the African-American world.

Spike Lee's Boyz in the Hood, a fucking great movie, had scene depicting this phenomenon.

So, in sum, when Clarence Thomas, Condi, or that US Rep Allen fruitcake says something retarded, it's still retarded, and I don't have to measure my criticism (of the idea) just because I'm white and the speaker is black.

You'll have to cast out that beam in your eye first. Cabrini-Green is no big deal?

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2010/10/end-of-cabrini-gre...

Your choice: grow up without a "right" to vote (not actually a right but a power, and of no direct value to you). Or grow up in Cabrini-Green.

Oh, and my party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism

Democracy is working out pretty much as we always expected. Don't you think? You think your system of government is a success? Oh, please, I can't wait to hear this.

There were certainly no-go zones in America in 1962.

Most of them applied if you were black, however (or in the language of the time, "Negro").

But not all. Casablanca (70 years old this year) includes Rick advising the Germans "there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade."

Yes (I accept the correction). See below:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3989048

You make it seem like it's either-or.

Why don't you consider the option that americans just screwed this good idea up?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com