Being White in Philly

[Timshel]

So you are going to get overly emotional yet again?

You did exactly as I said you did. You proclaim that you can clearly see his intent, yet you completely missed the intent of the article. That is a fact.

Settle down, superfreak!

I have encouraged you to offer an alternate analysis of his points. What is the point of his discussion of crime? Are you unable to comment on that?

 

[Timshel]

Actually you did. I did not say the article was about crime around Temple. I stated that your proclamation that the author only cared about whites was wrong. Which it was.

Actually, no I did not misrepresent what he wrote and you have failed to offer an alternative perspective.

Again, I was commenting on the article. I am sure the author has many concerns outside of crimes against white people perpetrated by black people. But in this article about race from the white perspective that was his focus and he did not once discuss crimes against anyone other than whites or perpetrated by any one but blacks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Settle down, superfreak!

I have encouraged you to offer an alternate analysis of his points. What is the point of his discussion of crime? Are you unable to comment on that?

Tell you what, when you can answer the questions I have asked you, then you might get a response to yours. Are you able to point out what it is that makes you think he only cares about crimes against white people? Are you able to point out what makes this guy an asshole/racist for trying to discuss race?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, no I did not misrepresent what he wrote and you have failed to offer an alternative perspective.

Wrong again... on both counts. You absolutely misrepresented him. I have stated several times what the intent of his article was as did the author. You simply wish to ignore it so you can go ranting and raving about the outrageous white guy who dared to try and speak to the topic of race in Philly.

Again, I was commenting on the article. I am sure the author has many concerns outside of crimes against white people perpetrated by black people. But in this article about race from the white perspective that was his focus and he did not once discuss crimes against anyone other than whites or perpetrated by any one but blacks.

and again, the article was about being WHITE in Philly. He talked with WHITE people about their experiences with regards to race.

from the article:

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.

He then goes on to say:

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.

 

[Timshel]

[/B]Againstring... the author started with no such assumption
You then pretend to know whether or not he would 'care' if his son wasn't going to Temple. You don't. You pulled that, like so much else, out of your ass.

You then pretend he only cares about Blacks being criminals and whites being victims. That too is complete bullshit.

Deep breaths, sf.

No, again... I was talking about the article not the author. You are unable to seperate them.

The intent was exactly what I stated. He did intend to discuss crime in and around Temple. He intended to disucss crimes impact on the perspective of a white person in regards to race.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Deep breaths, sf.

No, again... I was talking about the article not the author. You are unable to seperate them.

So when you say "The author starts with the apparent assumption that crime in and around Temple is only a problem or concern for white people."

You are not talking about the author. Ok String.

 

[Timshel]

Wrong again... on both counts. You absolutely misrepresented him. I have stated several times what the intent of his article was as did the author. You simply wish to ignore it so you can go ranting and raving about the outrageous white guy who dared to try and speak to the topic of race in Philly.

and again, the article was about being WHITE in Philly. He talked with WHITE people about their experiences with regards to race.

from the article:

He then goes on to say:

Okay, so he did mention crime against non whites, in the abstract. But in the interviews and discussion of real people it was absent. It is clear what his focus was.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Okay, so he did mention crime against non whites, in the abstract. But in the interviews and discussion of real people it was absent. It is clear what his focus was.

Yes String... the article was about being WHITE in Philly, a point you have a very hard time grasping. When talking to white people about their experiences with regards to race, you are not going to typically encounter stories about black on black or white on black crimes. You are going to hear about stories from the perspective of those being interviewed. Yes, some of the interviewees talked about crimes against them. Others told of good experiences (a point you also seem to ignore). But the intent of the article was to provoke a more open discussion of race. Which it has. That was his focus.

 

[Howey]

[

I took my daughter to Temple for a look see and while she toured the college my wife and I walked to local McDonalds.....that setteled the case for me...no way
in this world would I let my kid go to that school even if it was offered free.....gangs roamed the streets with their gang jackets, in packs, forcing people off
the sidewalks, kicking parked autos, and the word motherfuc--r echoed through the air constantly....
Thats just the truth, like it or not....

Sounds like most college campuses around the nation.

And I'll bet you spend a lot of time at the Jersey Shore, don't you?

In fact, YOU ARE a Jersey Shore, aren't you?

Fuck off, racist.

LMAO... as I stated, you are simply a knee jerk reactionary who reads 'evil white guy' into any article a white guy puts forth discussing race.

Pretending he was implying anything as blatantly retarded as what String put forth is quite sad.

Ok...I stopped after this.

Inasmuch as this was an opinion piece written by a white man, who interviewed white people, it's easy to realize he made a lot of assumptions and embellished his story to denigrate blacks.

Here's what his own paper had to say about his article:

Why I Hope You Won’t Read “Being White in Philly”
The story is racist.

The story’s writer, Bob Huber, is a friend and colleague whose work I’ve long respected. His lament, in this piece, is that whites can’t talk about race for fear of being labeled “racist.” And the story’s stated aim is to print the things white people think but are uncomfortable saying. Problems crop up throughout: No African-Americans are interviewed in the piece, nor are any Asians or Latinos; and the narrative takes place in a small swath of land, along the border of Fairmount, a largely white section of the city, and North Philadelphia, which is predominantly African-American. This gives a story that purports to be broad and authoritative a narrow cast. But I’m going to start by focusing on one early exchange, between Bob and a white Russian lady, who cuts loose.

“Blacks use skin color as an excuse,” she says. “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 making babies and smoking pot?”

There isn’t much done to contextualize this quote. And what’s there seems to endorse the Russian lady’s view. “If you’re not an American, the absence of a historical filter results in a raw view focused strictly on the here and now,” Huber writes, which I interpret as suggesting the foreigner has a clearer-eyed view of the moment.

Bob assures me he just wanted to let his sources speak for themselves in this story. 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.

For instance, it’s never stated that the writer is going to let his sources say any ‘ole thing. And the resulting piece doesn’t seem to obey even the most basic journalistic conventions—like being true. After all, the city’s African-Americans demonstrably aren’t sitting on their porches, waiting for government checks to arrive. They’re working—the unemployment rate among African-Americans is 14 percent. Perhaps some African-Americans, like some whites, Asians and Latinos, are underemployed or working low-wage jobs but they are not, as a group, smoking weed while they wait for the mail. For sake of comparison, imagine if we had quoted someone leveling the allegation that Ed Rendell is now spending his days sitting on his porch, smoking pot and waiting for financial “support.” We’d bat those falsehoods away with factual information a sentence or two later. But in this instance, an entire race was denigrated without exercising the journalistic practice of being, you know, factual—first taught in high school and reinforced throughout a career.

Now, Bob writes that he wants to see the city begin to engage in a meaningful conversation about race. And I’m sure, with the story now online, a “conversation” will start. I’m going to try and write something here that might render that conversation productive. Because there is a subtler issue at play here—namely, “Being White in Philly” never really raises matters of race.
As the piece winds on, Bob writes about street fights, drug dealing, muggings, the theft of grills and Halloween pumpkins. In each instance, the only feature of the perpetrators he mentions is the (imagined) color of their skin. I say “imagined” because, in some instances there is no witness—just the thought that it must have been a “black guy” or kid acting as the culprit.

I could go on...

Fact is the article reeks of racist stereotypes and assumptions and wasn't written to initiate a conversation about race. If it was, he'd have interviewed a black person.

No...what the article does is gives racists the opportunity to scream "racism!" and feel good about it.



QUESTION:

What if this article had been written by a black man and entitled "Being black in Phily" and then proceeded to denigrate the white population of the city?

 

[Timshel]

So when you say "The author starts with the apparent assumption that crime in and around Temple is only a problem or concern for white people."

You are not talking about the author. Ok String.

Really???

I am clearly referring to the article. The "author" is mentioned in relation to the article. I had commented on the Mayor's statements in the previous sentence and was clarifying what I was addressing.

Thanks for proving my point. You can't seperate the author from the article.

You are struggling to find some little thing to take out of context and score a point against me personally, while ignoring the bigger picture.

 

[Timshel]

Yes String... the article was about being WHITE in Philly, a point you have a very hard time grasping. When talking to white people about their experiences with regards to race, you are not going to typically encounter stories about black on black or white on black crimes. You are going to hear about stories from the perspective of those being interviewed. Yes, some of the interviewees talked about crimes against them. Others told of good experiences (a point you also seem to ignore). But the intent of the article was to provoke a more open discussion of race. Which it has. That was his focus.

I have not had any trouble grasping that and his been a part of every point I made. You are the one having trouble with it as you pretend that the mention of crime had nothing to do with race.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Of course, the author of the article doesn't care to address exactly how these areas in Philly became predominantly black and poor. And what cracks me up is the Russian immigrant mouthing the same BS you'd find in a Stormfront article.....she comes from a country where ETHNIC discrimination is par for the course (yeah, I know some Russians who could tell you a thing or two about the BS regarding "cossacks" and "jews" that goes on in modern Russia). Her butt comes running over here, she's had it tough (maybe).... so ignorant of this country's racial history, she shoots her mouth off (pissed she couldn't move to a better neighborhood.

A bad economy just emphasizes what already exists.

This "article" is nothing new.....SOS went on 40 years ago. Yes, there are black folk who are reactionary bigots and racists, but that is NOT the entire black populaltion of Philly. The magazine and the article's author got what they wanted...a reaction from Nutter. Now let's see if they like what the spotlight will reveal.

Yeah we know by it happened. Liberal domination of Philly like Detroit.

Oh puh-leeze! You've got to come back with something stronger than that old BS...because Reaganomics sure as hell wasn't a "liberal" creation...and that along with insane trade policies (thanks Slick Willy, you fool) put the kibosh on Philly like Detroit (along with "white flight" of the 1960's, etc.)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Really???

I am clearly referring to the article. The "author" is mentioned in relation to the article. I had commented on the Mayor's statements in the previous sentence and was clarifying what I was addressing.

Thanks for proving my point. You can't seperate the author from the article.

You are struggling to find some little thing to take out of context and score a point against me personally, while ignoring the bigger picture.

The article is written by the author, when you comment on what the AUTHOR's assumption is, it is about the author, not the article. You are the one that made a false statement and are simply spinning your wheels to avoid admitting that you read it wrong.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have not had any trouble grasping that and his been a part of every point I made. You are the one having trouble with it as you pretend that the mention of crime had nothing to do with race.

The entire friggin piece was about race. As I stated, you are not going to get stories about white on black or black on black crimes when you are interviewing white people about their interactions with black people (unless of course you happen to find an honest criminal). Yet you continue to be amazed that there aren't interviews with black people or stories from white people about white on black crimes.

 

[Timshel]

The article is written by the author, when you comment on what the AUTHOR's assumption is, it is about the author, not the article. You are the one that made a false statement and are simply spinning your wheels to avoid admitting that you read it wrong.

I have not made any false statements and I did not read anything wrong. My comments were about the authors assumptions within the context of the article. Howey posted an article making the same points, i.e., that there is an implied assumption that the crimes were all perpetrated by blacks even when there was no witness.

That the article is criticized as racist should not be a shock and that criticism is not simply because the author is white.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have not made any false statements and I did not read anything wrong. My comments were about the authors assumptions within the context of the article. Howey posted an article making the same points, i.e., that there is an implied assumption that the crimes were all perpetrated by blacks even when there was no witness.

That the article is criticized as racist should not be a shock and that criticism is not simply because the author is white.

Which was one of the authors points... a white person trying to start a discussion about white peoples views on race ends up with knee jerk reactionaries calling him and his article racist. That is the only thing that is not a shock.

I suppose you missed the earlier comment:

Chad Lassiter, a sociologist who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania and West Chester University believes the article has provided a valuable opportunity for the city to openly discuss the issue of race.

“We need not engage in reactionary politics,” he said. “We need to call for a race dialogue in the city of Philadelphia. We need to look at ourselves and how we’re not being tolerant. We need to become more tolerant and embrace difference.”

 

[Timshel]

The entire friggin piece was about race. As I stated, you are not going to get stories about white on black or black on black crimes when you are interviewing white people about their interactions with black people (unless of course you happen to find an honest criminal). Yet you continue to be amazed that there aren't interviews with black people or stories from white people about white on black crimes.

If you are discussing race why not interview blacks? Yes, you are getting the white perpective, but that does not mean you can't get the other side of some of their stories.

I am not amazed. I am bothered by the fact that almost the entire focus was black on white crime, there was very little expression of empathy for black people and that the author only challenged his sources when they were sympathetic towards black people. The guy that showed empathy for the Oxy dealer was being naive and the older woman that claimed not to be concerned about crime was only saying it for affect. No challenge of the ugly comments by the russian lady or anyone else. Well, he did express his discomfort for use of one word but just sort of accepted all of the negative stereotypes associated with it as factual.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Love it! I go on Sunday!

I am so ready for spring. Of course as soon as I got the manicure it started snowing. I'm over winter already.

 

[Phantasmal]

I am so ready for spring. Of course as soon as I got the manicure it started snowing. I'm over winter already.

The same here, it was 7 degrees driving to my daughters and snow is in the forecast, thank goodness I am heading to Mexico!

 

[christiefan915]

This article was about being White in Philly, yet you keep whining about it only being from the perspective of White people. Do you understand your disconnect yet?

The writer used only negative incidents or examples from the black underclass. "Everyone seems to have a story, often an uncomfortable story, about how white and black people relate."

His examples: white student with lost Blackberry confronted by angry black student; middle-school student steps up bad behaviour after being called "boy" by teacher; white, Russian student says blacks use skin color as excuse; white male gets mugged one night by black assailants..."not that it matters"; cops in squad car blame crime "mostly on black guys from North Philly; young black teen wants to sell Oxy to white architect; 87-year old man finds stranger in house: “It was a nigger boy, a big tall kid. He wanted money.”; man restoring houses lives next to black drug runner; little black kids come to white neighborhood for Halloween trick or treating .

How can you even think this isn't slanted?