Confessions of a Black Gentrifier

Brooklynian » Forum » Crown Heights and Prospect Lefferts Gardens »

Confessions of a Black Gentrifier

Share this!

12 Next »

Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Interesting article that puts an interesting spin on the debate. Particularly resonant for me as I am always conscious when moving to a neighborhood that I will often be part of that first but invisible wave (of young black professionals that are non-native NYers) that can often herald demographic changes (especially socioeconomic changes) or what we sometimes imprecisely collapse into the term gentrification.

I was part of that wave in Prospect Heights and clearly now in Crown Heights- so much so that the neighborhood I first moved into looks nothing like it does now. Though the article puts a new spin on the debate- I was hoping that the gentrifiers (whether black or white) wouldnt be portrayed as thoughtless and entitled folk who dont care about the impact they have on the community that is receiving them. Outside of one thoughtful young man in the article named Derek- I felt many of those featured had the same attitude as the folks who moved into my old 'hood and thus made it a less desirable place for me to live. Also while the article tries to draw the conflict of gentrification as black professional newcomer vs. black middle class or poor oldtimer- the article is weakened by the fact that there arent prominent voices of black middle class oldtimers or poor black oldtimers sharing how they feel about the neighborhood changing.

Would love to hear what folks think of this article.This is especially timely as we are looking at the recent census figures and what they say about population shifts in Brooklyn.

Confessions of a Black Gentrifier: When demographic change doesn't involve color
By Shani O. Hilton on March 18, 2011

If you ask Aisha Moore about gentrification, her first inclination is to scoff.

Moore, a black resident of Congress Heights, says her Ward 8 street is “100 percent black” and that’s not likely to change soon.

“Nobody leaves,” she jokes. “On my block, if new people bought a house, it’s because an old lady died.”

Yet Moore isn’t from D.C. and has only lived in the city since 2002, after she finished an undergraduate degree at the University of California at Berkeley. In 2004, her boyfriend bought a house in Congress Heights and she moved in with him in 2009.

Which, by every metric except one—skin color—makes her as much of a gentrifier as the young white residents unloading moving vans near U Street NW every weekend. As we talk, Moore says she’s frustrated by the dozens of stories that feature handwringing over D.C. becoming “less black,” because they paint an incomplete picture.

... More at http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40564/confessions-of-a-black-dc-gentrifier/

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Cool The Kid
We out this mother effer
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 1,385

Interesting

[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

yea, it was a long read, but a good one.

Some really good comments on it as well.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
MHA
rocking it
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,352

I had the sense that the author was paid by the word, and stretched out a short bitter truth into a protracted briny polemic.
Nevertheless, I am glad that I read it. The brother she quotes, Ngongang, said it best: "The fact is the only successful Black men we can point to are outliers. Random circumstances made them what they were.” This, for me sums up the paradox of being a 'gentrifier' as the author describes it. She makes the point that as a Black person she feels safer than her would be non-Black neighbors -- I let out a loud laugh when I read this as this is not my experience.
Ngongang also contradicts the author's notion that Blackness is an uber-camouflage when he recounts conversations with young kids who matter-of-factly stated that White people need have no fear of them, as it's the sad truth that most of the violence Whitefolks will hear about, or see will involve Black people hurting other Black people.

I don't walk around here believing my skin is camouflage against danger, but rather I believe it makes me more likely to be the victim of some crime;recent history proves this to be accurate...

IF it does camouflage me, it's in the eyes of White people: I see Whitefolks who in different contexts look at me and smile and even talk, but when I pass them on the street, they look fearfully straight ahead; I'm just background to their experience. This makes the idea that gentrification is a good thing hard to metabolize when you are perceived as would-be criminal; just another one of the soon-to-be-gone-'Other' walking about, and someone not to talk to. The other day I recounted a scenario to a friend who nodded sympathetically and said, 'but surely you can understand why he didn't talk to you? Sadly, I can.

It's difficult to appreciate the gentry if you understand history, have the Black male experience, and have endured the concomitant sexism Black men suffer as a result of being perceived as Bigger Thomases, Clarence Thomases, or Uncle Toms. It's difficult to appreciate the gentry if you are aware of the historical inequity of how economic opportunities are granted to some groups in contrast to the constant struggle of Blackfolks have had through time -- just to keep afloat and stay ahead; Blackfolks constantly rendered weak by those who because of skin color and history have opportunities and money, and with only whim and can put your belongings on the curb at the end of the month because you can't pay the rent.

It's hard to see myself as 'gentry'; that word has always been a euphemism for 'whitefolks' to me, and putting the word Black before it reads like an oxymoron.

At the same time, I understand the need for change. There is so much pathos and misery in this neighborhood, and despite knowing the reasons why it exists, that doesn't solve the problem. Pathos is pathos, and the best one can do is not solve it, but rather push it aside. So, at the end of the day, the gentry's march will bring change, and for those few Blackfolks able to withstand the shift, a better standard of living. I hope my boat can stay afloat as the tide rises.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Cool The Kid
We out this mother effer
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 1,385

Good post MHA

CH, and NYC in general have been cities in transition for the past 250 years. As discussed in that poverty thread, recently the city gov't has seemed to unfairly and unreasonably push for change only benefiting those above some income threshold, with tough displacement ripples reaching as far as CH being the "collateral damage". To a large degree it's very unfortunate, but to a large degree living in a unique city comes with unique challenges. Hopefully the next NYC administration will have a broader + more long term view of the city and act to protect and advance everybody. Time will tell.

[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK

# Posted 2 yrs ago
NostrandPark
Crown Heights Blogger
Joined: May '09
Posts: 120

Though the treatment of this topic in the Washington City Paper city is a bit trite, I'm glad to see that some of the nuances of this topic are being explored in the media.

In order to really understand and discuss gentrification in a meaningful way, it is important to keep the nuances of race and class into perspective when addressing the topic. This topic is not always as black and white as it may seem.

There have been some pretty insightful coverages of the topic:

Essence Magazine - which explores the intra-racial conflicts that arise when black gentrifiers move into a predominantly black, lower income neighborhood.

and

NPR, which features an interview with sociologist, Mary Pattillo, who studied "black-on-black-gentrification" and white on black gentrification and explores the differences, similarities, and effects of both in a book that she wrote entitled "Black on the Block".

In the NPR interview, she suggests is that one of the major differences between black and white gentrifiers is their connection to the community. She describes the interests of white gentrifiers as being mostly economic, whereas she has found that black gentrifiers have a dual interest - both economic and socio-cultural (i.e. participating in a "renaissance" that they feel connected to).

On another note, one other part of this debate that is often overlooked, is the pivotal role that black landlords (and addition to their white counterparts) may have as gatekeepers in the process of gentrification. This is probably one of the more fascinating parts of the discussion.

(Plug: Our bloggers Abeni G. and Laurel B. are exploring this an other aspects in their "Gentrifying Brooklyn" film ... still in production)

A good portion of the landlords around here are older African-American investors, who purchased their places for 5 figures back in the 70s or otherwise inherited them from a relative. But for the house that they own, they might otherwise be considered lower-income. They do have a role to play in the neighborhood changes...

It's important to keep the nuances of race and class into perspective when addressing the topic.

Nostrand Park. Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Experience the Renaissance. http://www.nostrandpark.com

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

I've always thought of the older Af-Am homeowners described by NostrandPark as being sort of like the family farmers in the Midwest.

Although (for the most part) they are free from the ignorant racist crap described by the article's author (and millions of others), the farmers find themselves in a similar situation after cashing in their property:

-They literally lose their way of life; Their former identity, neighborhood, friends, etc. all disappear.

-They cash out something that their ancestors worked incredibly hard to achieve.

-They often lack the skills, connections and education needed to quickly enter a new profession, or establish a new identity.

Let's not kid ourselves:
Change is brutally hard to adapt to, and even harder when you don't have class and race on your side.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

I think that one way of understanding differential impact of black and white "gentrifiers" and the particular intersection of their race and class means exploring their experiences. While MHA describes a profound sense of alienation
This makes the idea that gentrification is a good thing hard to metabolize when you are perceived as would-be criminal; just another one of the soon-to-be-gone-'Other' walking about, and someone not to talk to.

My experience of invisibility has do to with my sex- and is mostly empowering. Because I am a woman I am only occasionally going to be put in the criminal spot as generally black women are less likely than black men to be victimized when driving/walking while black. However, that protection of being invisible will only go so far when I am targeted for sexually based violence or have to interface with law enforcement.

But my experience is also firmly rooted in my class experience. Even though I am an outlier as a successful black woman and I know that the privileges I was born into were an accident of birth I feel somewhat secure in what I have attained. Unlike many of my neighbors, I made a choice to live here. Yes my choice was driven by economic forces but I am not a prisoner to this choice. The level of education I have attained and profession I work in makes it so I can pick up and leave if I want to. I imagine this is not the case of many gentrifiers who might be one paycheck away from disaster or many of the neighborhood oldtimers that might be living on the edge. Thats why I think it behooves people of consciousness to actually help in the hood that is receiving them.

Change sucks. I dont care if the general vector is of improvement- it sucks to not recognize the place where you live, to not be able to afford the new restaurants/grocery stores or to feel uncomfortable at the local watering hole. Thats just a taste of the root shock that people displaced by gentrification must feel.Fullilove describes root shock as
the loss of a massive web of connections
as a result of displacement. Hell I felt the frustration as I saw my adopted neighborhood change and realized that rents kept raising and my landlord didnt care about my years and years as a good tenant cause they could get higher rent paid by some Midwestern white kid who read in the New Yorker that Prospect Heights was "Park Slope with edge". Hell I felt the frustration as I couldnt get a drink at the new bar in the neighborhood and learned that my kind wasnt really welcome there. But I dont delude myself to think that these minor inconveniences even approach the economic vise being applied to inhabitants who may be at the same time suffering from and benefiting from gentrification.

Gentrification isnt a simple topic to discuss. But I think its necessary or gentrifiers will be making more of a problem instead of being agents for positive change. And the only way to do that is to become a part of the community and actually become embedded in its social fabric.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
ntfool
above average
Joined: Sep '08
Posts: 486

Trumystic said:
Gentrification isnt a simple topic to discuss. But I think its necessary or gentrifiers will be making more of a problem instead of being agents for positive change. And the only way to do that is to become a part of the community and actually become embedded in its social fabric.

Could not agree with that sentiment more. In fact, posted something very similar in the Bed-Stuy section a week ago:

http://brooklynian.com/forum/fort-greene-clinton-hill-bed-stuy/bed-stuy-do-or-die

If you're happy, you're not paying attention.

spurn Productions, Inc.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
CLAYFILMS
getting it
Joined: Oct '07
Posts: 216

Here's a very interesting article about what's going on the suburbs of Detroit. When race is a non issue, the much bigger and usually swept under the rug class issue rears it's ugly head.

"I've got people of color who don't want people of color to move into the city," says Southfield Police Chief Joseph Thomas, who is himself black. "It's not a black-white thing. This is a black-black thing. My six-figure blacks are very concerned about multiple-family, economically depressed people moving into rental homes and apartments, bringing in their bad behaviors.

Some blacks just don't want to live near other blacks, she says: "There is classism within the black community. The foreclosure crisis may be accelerating it." But she says middle-class blacks, like middle-class whites, are also put off by behavior of impoverished blacks who "have developed their own culture, one that is very different from mainstream America.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41810267/ns/us_news-life/

# Posted 2 yrs ago
NostrandPark
Crown Heights Blogger
Joined: May '09
Posts: 120

@clayfilms ... thanks for the article. good read.

Nostrand Park. Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Experience the Renaissance. http://www.nostrandpark.com

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Clayfilms, interesting article though I am concerned by the tone and especially the quotation you posted. I think too many confuse
lower income=low class= crime+drugs+ deviant behavior etc a la Bill Cosby. But I think most lower income people are just trying to get by and raise their families like everyone else. Thus people are confusing dysfunction within lower income communities and thinking that is an innate property of being lower income. Class prejudice is rife in a lot of the discussions about gentrification. So great to see these articles talking about the experiences of black folk and thus bringing these assumptions to the fore. One quotation from this that I think sums it up and that I would call the Black Gentrifier's Burden:

Those who contemplate fleeing have fallen into what Cashin calls the "black middle-class dilemma."

"You have a choice of whether you are willing to be around your people or go 180 degrees in the other direction," she says. "To the higher income black people, if you don't want to love and help your lower-income black brethren, why would you expect white people to? If you can't do it, no one in society can do it. You can try to flee or you can be part of the solution."

# Posted 2 yrs ago
CLAYFILMS
getting it
Joined: Oct '07
Posts: 216

yeah..this is nothing new..bottom line..the hood needs more fathers like furious styles..lol

[video]

[+] Embed this video

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

Whenever I see that clip, I find myself strongly agreeing with the guy with the cane AND the guy with the tie.

Then, I conclude the truth is somewhere in the middle.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

the logic about the gun stores and liquor stores is pretty interesting. same with the crack -- "we don't smuggle it, therefore it's not our fault!"

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

"I've got people of color who don't want people of color to move into the city," says Southfield Police Chief Joseph Thomas, who is himself black. "It's not a black-white thing. This is a black-black thing. My six-figure blacks are very concerned about multiple-family, economically depressed people moving into rental homes and apartments, bringing in their bad behaviors.

this is just a controversial way of saying something that really shouldn't be controversial at all: the people he's talking about don't want to live near bad behavior.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

Some blacks just don't want to live near other blacks, she says: "There is classism within the black community. The foreclosure crisis may be accelerating it." But she says middle-class blacks, like middle-class whites, are also put off by behavior of impoverished blacks who "have developed their own culture, one that is very different from mainstream America."

I'd be more surprised if this was NOT the case.

Imagine, if you will, a largely white suburban cul-de-sac that has stable property values.

Now imagine that the development is located next to a large tract of land that is ripe for development. If the present residents learned that a trailer park was proposed for the site, and they feared low income whites with "crime+drugs+ deviant behavior etc" to move in: They would fight like hell to stop it.

As trumystic points out, such class prejustice is just as unfounded as the variety that is based on skin color.

...but let's no kid ourselves, our own sense of "who we are" may be even more wrapped up in social class than color.

Clearly, people are born with an assigned color and they can't do much about it. However, we like to believe that our social class is at least partly due to our own accomplishments.

It may be easier to distance one's self from their skin than their accomplishments.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Mr Met, black does not equal bad behavior. Nor does being poor equal bad behavior. When people use language to convey that they believe poor and black people are badly behaved then the person with these assumptions will be called racist or classist. It's really not that simple at all.

The point which I think Whynot is trying to make is that many black middle class gentrifiers can't see how class prejudiced they are, white middle class gentrifiers can't see how racist/classist they are being with the coded words they use.

Look at press from Boston that covers the gentrification of South Boston (formerly called the nation's largest white ghetto). However, the coverage of Southie clearly notes that a small percentage of the poor population was involved in crime and drugs. Also the stories acknowledge and even romanticize the history of the Southie BEFORE the gentrifiers arrived.

Many gentrifiers caught up in the fantasy that they are pioneers and "are a part of change for the better" forget the neighborhood had a vibrant history and culture before they moved in.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

While trumystic accurately refers to the neighborhood of Southie as a ghetto, in my experience it is frequently referred to in more generous terms: a "working class neighborhood". To me, this term connotes that a small percentage of the population is involved in drugs and crime, and the vast majority of the population is working and honest.

On the other hand, a black neighborhood is assumed to be a "ghetto"; a word with a much different, harsher meaning. In my experience, people often feel the need to clarify when that is not the case. For example, I often hear, "It's a mostly black neighborhood, but it isn't a ghetto."

Or, on a more individual basis: "She is black, but she is not ghetto". As a result of how education and opportunities are distributed in this country, it is pretty rare for me to hear people need to make similar clarifications, such as: "He is white, but he is not white trash"

But let's stick with the safer topic: How language is used to describe neighborhoods. Perhaps because I am a stickler, I try to use the term "ghetto" to refer only the worst neighborhoods of the city.

While pockets of Crown Heights still suck to live in, most are far better than they were in the 80s and 90s. ...and they do not approach the problems currently and recently faced by neighborhoods such as East NY, Bushwick, or Far Rockaway.

When one looks at the data, I suspect one will also find that Crown Heights is also far better off than some of the huge, meth-infested white trailer parks in the mid-west.

So, I proudly declare the following:

Whether you are black or white, if you have moved to Crown Heights, you have not moved to a "ghetto". ...but I do hope you do as much as you can to make it even better than it is.

P.S. These are the topics that give one carpal tunnel, and this medium is a major obstacle to productive conversations. Among other things, I lack intonation.

...perhaps a conversation in real life?

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

Mr Met, black does not equal bad behavior. Nor does being poor equal bad behavior.

No one said it does.

When people use language to convey that they believe poor and black people are badly behaved then the person with these assumptions will be called racist or classist. It's really not that simple at all.

Oh, I have no doubt that they will be called racist or classist. That's the problem. Recognizing statistical realities does not make you a racist. I would argue that the natural impulse that many people have to throw the word "racist" around hampers any real progress. Until people are willing to recognize the realities and tackle them honestly, without instinctively searching for someone to blame or call a racist, I don't think there is any hope to change the status quo.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

While we are discussing labels that are not productive, dare I bring up the label "oreo"?

This label also assumes that all blacks must think and act a certain way, and that they are somehow being "disloyal to their race" when they differ.

you know, like the cookie: black on the outside, but white on the inside?

Lots of stupid ideas in the world.

....inherent in the definition is that all white people think alike.

??

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

put off by behavior of impoverished blacks who "have developed their own culture, one that is very different from mainstream America

and

My six-figure blacks are very concerned about multiple-family, economically depressed people moving into rental homes and apartments, bringing in their bad behaviors.

Mr Met clearly the people being interviewed in these articles allude to the frames "poor folk have no class" and "black folk are low class" (the latter usually in the white vs black gentrification stories). Perhaps you interpret things differently- cause its as clear as day to me. I like calling it as I see it and I can also continue having a rational discussion. I dont think you can change the status quo by coddling people that are prejudiced. First, they have to admit their prejudice and then we can move from there.

"Recognizing statistical realities does not make you a racist". What statistical realities are you talking about? The numbers arent just numbers. People use stats to make extremely value laden statements all the time. So I am genuinely curious to hear what statistical facts you think back up alot of the statements usually made in these gentrification articles.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Cool The Kid
We out this mother effer
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 1,385

Trumystic seems to be excited at the prospect of ensnaring a "closet racist"

Trumystic lets just put some things out there OK

In NYC, and around the country, primarily black neighborhoods tend to be poorer, and from that they tend to have more crime. I don't think anyone has made any inferences on the characters of black people in general here besides you in the hopes of race baiting.

When looked at from a socieoeconomic POV, removing race from the equation, the fact of the matter is, obviously all, or not even a majority of poor people are not criminals, but a higher percentage of poor people are. So when people with higher incomes & education etc move into poor neighborhoods- be they black, white, whatever- with them comes a change in the demographic that does lower crime. When you remove "black/white" from the discussion it's all very logical. I don't think this thread is the place to explore the reasons why poor people commit more crime or why black people are disproportionately poorer, but the fact of the matter is, NYC's poor neighborhoods have more crime and also tend to have higher percentages of minorities. I don't think stating those facts is making any kind of connection or inference one way or another; but if people can't speak honestly w/o being pegged as racist because such facts offend people's sensibilities we can never have an earnest discussion about anything to do with race. Not really a environment conducive to any kind of progress

[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

put off by behavior of impoverished blacks who "have developed their own culture, one that is very different from mainstream America

what about this do you disagree with? what do you take issue with the idea that this culture exists?

My six-figure blacks are very concerned about multiple-family, economically depressed people moving into rental homes and apartments, bringing in their bad behaviors.

i don't really see the significance of people wanting and tending to live with others of the same socioeconomic status. isn't that just the way the cookie crumbles? i also don't really understand why it matters that the "six-figure" people referenced in the quote are black.

I dont think you can change the status quo by coddling people that are prejudiced.

we might be talking about different status quos. i was talking about the relative economic deprivation of blacks in america. it obviously exists, so why not change it rather than try to protect it?

What statistical realities are you talking about? The numbers arent just numbers. People use stats to make extremely value laden statements all the time. So I am genuinely curious to hear what statistical facts you think back up alot of the statements usually made in these gentrification articles.

there are plenty that i think are relevant, such as: violent crime stats (specifically murder and gun violence), incarceration rates, percentage of families headed by single mothers, educational opportunity and achievement, among others. i agree that some people take these stats and come to prejudicial conclusions, and that is wrong. but these stats are stats, and, in my opinion, only when they are addressed honestly and critically can the status quo that i mentioned above be changed. just my opinion.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

Some blacks just don't want to live near other blacks

i'd argue that the very idea that this is a problem is counterproductive. why is this strange or even noteworthy?

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

CTK-
Yes, it is the classic "correlation vs causation" problem. Here's a quick example:

Fact: In the summer, the sales of ice cream increases.
Fact: In the summer, crime increases.

One could create a graph that showed the sales of ice cream is directly correlated to the amount of crime in a given month. One could create a similar graph depicting temperature and crime.

However, only a fool would imagine that ice cream or temperature CAUSED crime. Based on this belief in "causation", this same fool would likely try to ban ice cream sales based on such data. They might tell us to move to Alaska as well.

....Clearly lots of people eat lots of ice cream, yet commit no crimes. Clearly lots of people live in hot as hell deserts, yet commit not crimes.

Still with me?

...this same little exercise could be done regarding someone being black and therefore being a criminal. Everyone could determine that there is a correlation, but only the lazy would declare there was actually a causation.

...this same little exercise could be done regarding income and education (aka "class"), and the poor's propensity to commit crime. Everyone could determine that there was a correlation, but only the lazy would declare there was causation.

Trumystic,
Accurately determining whether Mr. Met sees a correlation or causation between variables is very difficult on a message board.

He states above that he does not. To me, his posts do not indicate that he does.

Because I believe that everyone on earth tries tries to understand their surroundings in an effort to keep ourselves safe, and that the vast majority of us use many variables to determine whether someone is likely to do harm, ....my experience is that such conversations are most productive in person.

As you have discussed, even though the concepts involved in race and class are complicated, understanding them does not make one able to predict crime or "bad behavior". You accurately point out that people are waaaay more complex than the color of their skin, or their social class.

Those who are willing to put in a little mental work conclude the same thing.

I do not believe that you have enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Met is among those that places "too much weight" on the variables of race and class.

....but, of course, you are free to interpret his posts and declare causation if you wish.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Cool The Kid, are you really trying to say that these news stories arent using these memes "poor folk have no class" and "black folk are low class"? Cause if you cant then I think we see things very differently and thats why its hard to communicate. Its clear people have different definitions of what "class", "classy", "lack of class" means so I can see having discussion around those terms. But to refuse to see that this is the subtext boggles my mind.

Thats why press around Southie is so interesting because you can see how most gentrification articles are racially loaded. Conversely, these articles about black on black gentrification point out the key issue which is social class. Whynot makes interesting points that a lot of the coverage of Southie tries to make nuanced distinctions about working class people. But here's the kicker: why isnt the distinction made for black neighborhoods? Poor white people live in working class neighborhoods (never ghettos or only rarely poor 'hoods). Poor black people live in ghettos. For all the reasons Whynot suggested this makes a difference in the collective consciousness.

I am not trying to "snare a closet racist" rather I am trying to point out assumptions and statements that are problematic and or classist/racist.

Let's try an example of statements linking poverty and crime:
A1)Statistics say that poor people commit more crimes than middle class people
A2) Statistics say that a higher proportion of the poor population is incarcerated compared the middle class population.

Lets compare 2 other statements bout race and crime:
B1) Statistics say that blacks commit more crimes than white people
B2) Statistics say that a higher proportion of the black population is incarcerated compared to the white population

Those are very different statements. Which ones are problematic? Which ones might bolster class based prejudice? Or race based prejudice? If someone cant see the differences in the above statements I am going to point that out. So, if you think this discussion or environment isnt conducive to "any kind of progress" then you arent being forced to participate.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

I am not trying to "snare a closet racist" rather I am trying to point out assumptions and statements that are problematic and or classist/racist.

Trumystic-
Can I give you advice?

First you should find someone who disagrees with your goals. ...then, go at them.

However, presently, it seems as if you are going after posters for not expressing themselves in a tedious medium in the exact way you desire.

For example, the same post I am typing (and you are reading) can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Am I typing in a snide tone?

Am I sarcastic?

Am I sincere?

Am I making eye contact?

Am I telling you that you must believe what I believe because I am an authority?

Am I disagreeing with your ultimate goal of having people open their minds, or cheering you on?

Can we be given the benefit of the doubt, and have you assume that we are not disagreeing with your goals, but we ARE disagreeing with the speed and means you are using to try to achieve those goals?

For example, do you believe that I believe that an in person conversation is the only way to hold such conversations without misunderstanding that quickly kill the conversation?

Do I (and perhaps others) want to meet you and have this conversation, or do I just want you to stop posting?

....my suggestion is the polar opposite of "avoiding the conversation".

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

Let's try an example of statements linking poverty and crime:
A1)Statistics say that poor people commit more crimes than middle class people
A2) Statistics say that a higher proportion of the poor population is incarcerated compared the middle class population.

Lets compare 2 other statements bout race and crime:
B1) Statistics say that blacks commit more crimes than white people
B2) Statistics say that a higher proportion of the black population is incarcerated compared to the white population

Those are very different statements. Which ones are problematic? Which ones might bolster class based prejudice? Or race based prejudice?

i'm not sure what you're getting at here, but, assuming all of these statements are statistically true, then none of them are problematic in and of themselves. who cares if a statistic CAN bolster prejudice? a lot of things CAN be interpreted in the wrong way. but those same things can be interpreted in a constructive way.

personally think that these types of statistical findings, while startling and disturbing, should be addressed head-on.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Mr Met:

put off by behavior of impoverished blacks who "have developed their own culture, one that is very different from mainstream America

what about this do you disagree with? what do you take issue with the idea that this culture exists?

I disagree with the embedded assumption that all impoverished blacks have a deviant culture that glorifies drugs, crimes and out of wedlock birth. Or that necessarily economically depressed people bring bad behavior along with them. This Jerry Springer-Maury Povich axis of culture exists but that isnt the culture of most poor black people. Why cant we acknowledge that poor black people are working poor black people?

i don't really see the significance of people wanting and tending to live with others of the same socioeconomic status. isn't that just the way the cookie crumbles?

We are talking about different articles that describe different waves of migration. The article about DC is about black middle class people moving into poor neighborhoods thus gentrifying the hood. The other article is about poor black people moving into black middle class hoods in the suburbs of Detroit. So if a black middle class person in the DC article were to say "I dont want to live around poor people" then I would wonder why the fuck they moved to the hood. For that same middle class black person in suburban Detroit to make that statement I could understand it-but would likely to think its narrow minded.

I think the WNYC piece that Nostrand Park linked to is a great one and is worth listening to.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

trumystic-

I disagree with the embedded assumption that all impoverished blacks have a deviant culture that glorifies drugs, crimes and out of wedlock birth.

Have you found that Mr. Met, CTK, or myself argues this is the case?

Mr. Met.-

mr. met said:

Let's try an example of statements linking poverty and crime:
A1)Statistics say that poor people commit more crimes than middle class people
A2) Statistics say that a higher proportion of the poor population is incarcerated compared the middle class population.

Lets compare 2 other statements bout race and crime:
B1) Statistics say that blacks commit more crimes than white people
B2) Statistics say that a higher proportion of the black population is incarcerated compared to the white population

Those are very different statements. Which ones are problematic? Which ones might bolster class based prejudice? Or race based prejudice?

i'm not sure what you're getting at here, but, assuming all of these statements are statistically true, then none of them are problematic in and of themselves. who cares if a statistic CAN bolster prejudice? a lot of things CAN be interpreted in the wrong way. but those same things can be interpreted in a constructive way.

personally think that these types of statistical findings, while startling and disturbing, should be addressed head-on.

Yes, One must use their intellect to digest any such data, and statistics can be made to justify any pre-conceived conclusion.

For example, by learning that 90% of the people in prisons are minorities and/or poor, I could conclude the following:

1. 90% of minorities are criminals. (wrong!)

2. The criminal justice system is biased against minorities. (yes, and no)

3. Wow, we have a large group of people in society who feel no connection to the larger society. ...and many of them are minorities. (yes)

Obviously, one would view minorities and "what change is needed in the US" based on which of the above three conclusions reached.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Cool The Kid
We out this mother effer
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 1,385

I don't see any memes or veiled language being used. The only way I can see a problem with the article is in if you feel that people are lying. When the inner city folks moved into those suburbs they brought behaviors with them that were deemed unacceptable by those already there...

I agree that the quote "people of color not wanting people of color to move in" was a bit wrongly worded, but that was said by a black police chief. I don't want to put words in his mouth, he said what he said, but I think he meant to say suburban black people don't want inner city black people moving in. That's no issue of race, it's of class; his wording was just wrong.

Removing race from the picture it's true, poorer areas tend to have more crime & quality of life issues you don't see as you go into areas of higher property value/household income. Is that wrong to point out in a discussion about gentrification? Is it slanderous innuendo? I say no and no. If we can't even acknowledge that things happen in the inner city that don't happen elsewhere w/o being labeled racist we can't have an honest discussion.

And saying things happen in the ghetto that don't happen elsewhere isn't an indictment of EVERYONE in the ghetto. All it takes is a few bad sheep or a higher incidence of certain behaviors to draw a conclusion. Obviously every young black male isn't a criminal, but for whatever reason we have a disproportionate amount of criminals among us compared to other groups. Likewise ALL people from the inner city don't exhibit the behaviors complained about in that article, but compared to other groups there are higher incidences of people within that group who do exhibit those behaviors than in other groups. Is that wrong to point out?

[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

If we were nit picky we could point out to CTK that a lot of criminal activity and anti-social behavior is present in white occupied trailer parks, and berate him for not pointing that out again, even though it was mentioned above.

(I'm just trying to show how this medium can be used to indict well meaning people)

trumystic, Please let me know when I can stop making this point.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

I disagree with the embedded assumption that all impoverished blacks have a deviant culture that glorifies drugs, crimes and out of wedlock birth.

i guess that assumption wasn't embedded deep enough for me to recognize it.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

And saying things happen in the ghetto that don't happen elsewhere isn't an indictment of EVERYONE in the ghetto. All it takes is a few bad sheep or a higher incidence of certain behaviors to draw a conclusion. Obviously every young black male isn't a criminal, but for whatever reason we have a disproportionate amount of criminals among us compared to other groups. Likewise ALL people from the inner city don't exhibit the behaviors complained about in that article, but compared to other groups there are higher incidences of people within that group who do exhibit those behaviors than in other groups. Is that wrong to point out?

+1.

gun violence and disturbing incarceration rates affect the black community at a rate greater than any other. recognizing this and wanting to deal with it does not mean that one thinks everyone in the black community is a criminal.

We are talking about different articles that describe different waves of migration. The article about DC is about black middle class people moving into poor neighborhoods thus gentrifying the hood. The other article is about poor black people moving into black middle class hoods in the suburbs of Detroit. So if a black middle class person in the DC article were to say "I dont want to live around poor people" then I would wonder why the fuck they moved to the hood. For that same middle class black person in suburban Detroit to make that statement I could understand it-but would likely to think its narrow minded.

totally fair. i guess my comments don't directly address gentrification, so my fault.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Whynot, you have repeatedly said this is not the forum you would prefer to discuss these issues. I hear you. I think there are some advantages and disadvantages to this medium. But I am not sure why you are giving me advice or suggesting that I am "going after people" because I am asking them to clarify what they posted. This is a conversation on a message board, right?

Mr Met, I think that you cant solve the problem unless you name it and understand its scope. The problem can be crime, poverty, racism or class based prejudice. So if someone starts the conversation with statement A1 and B1 ( which arent factually correct) I am going to point that out and see where else they are going. Did they in fact misspeak? Or do they actually believe that poor or black people bring crime with them? If they think the latter than its hard for me to think that I can in fact have constructive communication with that person. We in fact might have common viewpoint or we might not- but that requires more information and clarification.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

Trumystic said:
Whynot, you have repeatedly said this is not the forum you would prefer to discuss these issues. I hear you. I think there are some advantages and disadvantages to this medium. But I am not sure why you are giving me advice or suggesting that I am "going after people" because I am asking them to clarify what they posted. This is a conversation on a message board, right?

Absolutely.

However, you may conclude, (like I have) that we will type endlessly about such things, but that very little progress is made unless in person conversations occur.

I was giving you such advice because many people find it very tedious to have to repeatedly ask people to clarify things, others become easily offended and conclude that they are the only intelligent people on earth.

....and then, in the event that they disappear, it is assumed that people are either "afraid to talk about such issues", or have been successfully "owned" by their opponent.

I was also making sure that you knew to have a thick skin on these boards, because we tend to have a culture and style of confrontation you may be unfamiliar with. ...In my view it we pretty fairly apply it. I like to think of the political and racial discussions on this board as being "rigorous", but I suspect many people disagree with my use of this term.

I also find that some do not have the time to escape from work to carry on such discussions, causing annoying luls in the conversation.

....but if you feel the exercise is fruitful, keep typing.

I've never discouraged anyone from typing. That would be an odd, hypocritical stance for me to make ....esp in light of having over 8000 posts on this thing.

(did you get the humor in that last statement, or did you find it to be snide? By pointing the limits of this medium, am I beating a dead horse or being helpful? ...I can't tell from your facial expression. Was that an exasperated sigh, or an amused laugh you just made?)

and now, fun with punctuation:

A woman: Without her, man is nothing.
A woman, without her man, is nothing

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

mr. met said:

And saying things happen in the ghetto that don't happen elsewhere isn't an indictment of EVERYONE in the ghetto. All it takes is a few bad sheep or a higher incidence of certain behaviors to draw a conclusion. Obviously every young black male isn't a criminal, but for whatever reason we have a disproportionate amount of criminals among us compared to other groups. Likewise ALL people from the inner city don't exhibit the behaviors complained about in that article, but compared to other groups there are higher incidences of people within that group who do exhibit those behaviors than in other groups. Is that wrong to point out?

+1.

gun violence and disturbing incarceration rates affect the black community at a rate greater than any other. recognizing this and wanting to deal with it does not mean that one thinks everyone in the black community is a criminal.

We are talking about different articles that describe different waves of migration. The article about DC is about black middle class people moving into poor neighborhoods thus gentrifying the hood. The other article is about poor black people moving into black middle class hoods in the suburbs of Detroit. So if a black middle class person in the DC article were to say "I dont want to live around poor people" then I would wonder why the fuck they moved to the hood. For that same middle class black person in suburban Detroit to make that statement I could understand it-but would likely to think its narrow minded.

totally fair. i guess my comments don't directly address gentrification, so my fault.

Mr. Met sounds like a horrible person.

(sarcasm?)

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

mr. met said:

I disagree with the embedded assumption that all impoverished blacks have a deviant culture that glorifies drugs, crimes and out of wedlock birth.

i guess that assumption wasn't embedded deep enough for me to recognize it.

ah, now we are getting somewhere. Everyone uses race and class in order to determine things about a person, but different people allow themselves to assign different weights to the factors. Mr. Met calls this the degree to which the factors are "embedded".

For example, if you are a member of the Klu Klux Klan, you assign a huge percentage of your opinion of someone based on their race. ....and you likely have eugenics at the core of your belief system (aka world view). They have a belief system that supports CAUSATION between race and factors such as drug use and criminal activity. The belief is embedded in them.

[in my opinion, the Klan ignores the effects of hundreds of years of past and current oppression in this country. I'm also not a fan eugenics.] ....did I need to type the parts between the [ ]?

Conversely, if you are a member of the Ayn Rand or John Birch society, you assign a huge percentage of your opinion of someone based on what social class they have achieved. Such societies are based on the belief that hard work can give people unfettered success, and from this premise declare that there is CAUSATION between anyone who is lower class AND laziness and unproductive behaviors (such as using drugs). The belief is embedded in them.

[in my opinion they ignore the fact that hard work alone will not make you rich, nor will it make you middle class] ....did I need to type the parts between the [ ]?

Clearly the majority of people in this country don't hold such extreme views, so we are merely discussing to what DEGREE they allow class and race to influence their opinions of others, right?

....no one is claiming that they are free from prejustice based on class and race, right? ....no one is claiming that they haven't given a just a little thought to the merits of eugenics and "hard work", right?

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Cool the Kid said

I don't see any memes or veiled language being used. The only way I can see a problem with the article is in if you feel that people are lying. When the inner city folks moved into those suburbs they brought behaviors with them that were deemed unacceptable by those already there..

I dont think the people in the article are lying. Suburban folks clearly had a problem with what they termed unwanted behavior. What was the behavior specifically though? Sitting on your stoop or front yard? Not mowing your lawn? Having a loud party? Drive by shootings? Trash left in the front yard or street? Those are all different kinds of unwanted behavior.

Thats why the WNYC piece is interesting. It points out that many of these tensions come from assumptions some founded and some not. For example people assume that poor people are engaging in behavior because of lack or morality or bad behavior. Instead, it might be because they dont have the money for upkeep or they are engaging in habits they have from their old hood i.e stoop sitting.

And I firmly believe these negative sentiments/veiled language are embedded in many gentrification articles as well as discussions of the inner city. You give a perfect example when you said "suburban black people don't want inner city black people moving in". In otherwords, I think these are morally equivalent and problematic statements voiced in these and other articles:
* I dont want to live near lower income people
* I dont want to live near black people
which is different than:
* I do not want to live near poorly behaved people who do X.

The first 2 statements I deem prejudiced statements. I wont apologize for that conclusion. And I also wont apologize for trying to get you to see that those statements are diametrically opposed in meaning and intent.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Is there some kind of Unified Protocol of Gentrification Conversations memo that I missed? I started by posting an article that I thought was interesting. My only goal was to find out peoples reactions and thoughts and have a conversation about race and class. OMG yes on a message board. Other people posted articles that were interesting to them. Some of your reactions were positive to some of the articles. My reaction to the Detroit and Atlanta article was complicated and I pointed out my issues with the language especially classist language. Further, I asked posters to clarify their posts too.

And there is a problem with this why? Why is this interpreted as "race baiting", "going after people" or "indicting people"?

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

As an anarchist, I would rip up any such memo

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Cool The Kid
We out this mother effer
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 1,385

Trumystic said:
Cool the Kid said

I don't see any memes or veiled language being used. The only way I can see a problem with the article is in if you feel that people are lying. When the inner city folks moved into those suburbs they brought behaviors with them that were deemed unacceptable by those already there..

I dont think the people in the article are lying. Suburban folks clearly had a problem with what they termed unwanted behavior. What was the behavior specifically though? Sitting on your stoop or front yard? Not mowing your lawn? Having a loud party? Drive by shootings? Trash left in the front yard or street? Those are all different kinds of unwanted behavior.

They listed the behaviors pretty explicitly, and some were behaviors that in my estimation would be unacceptable in CH/BS... disrespecting other people's property, holding up traffic walking in the middle of the street, carrying on loudly in the middle of the night, etc....

Thats why the WNYC piece is interesting. It points out that many of these tensions come from assumptions some founded and some not. For example people assume that poor people are engaging in behavior because of lack or morality or bad behavior. Instead, it might be because they dont have the money for upkeep or they are engaging in habits they have from their old hood i.e stoop sitting.

This is a good point. However, just as you want to give benefit of doubt to the motives of the behaviors of inner city folks in a suburban environment, for the sake of equity we have to give that same benefit of doubt to gentrifiers. Both parties are people moving to new environments that best serve their needs within their means. And I don't think inadvertently raising rents because changing geo-economics force one out of the neighborhoods they would choose otherwise is equivalent to directly disrespecting or disregarding one's neighbor's property and peace of mind, for a litany of reasons I'd rather not have to repeat but think are pretty obvious and can elaborate on if asked.

And I firmly believe these negative sentiments/veiled language are embedded in many gentrification articles as well as discussions of the inner city. You give a perfect example when you said "suburban black people don't want inner city black people moving in". In otherwords, I think these are morally equivalent and problematic statements voiced in these and other articles:
* I dont want to live near lower income people
* I dont want to live near black people
which is different than:
* I do not want to live near poorly behaved people who do X.

The first 2 statements I deem prejudiced statements. I wont apologize for that conclusion. And I also wont apologize for trying to get you to see that those statements are diametrically opposed in meaning and intent.

I see an obvious issue with the second statement, but not the first, if it is changed to "poor inner city people". For the thousandth time, most inner city people are not bad people or criminals or whatever. But there is a correlation between poverty & crime, as well as between certain behaviors deemed as unacceptable outside the inner city that are associated with the inner city and the people from them. In the case of the article about Detroit, said behaviors included the disrespecting of property, noise pollution, excessive trash, etc. etc... these were direct behaviors exhibited by the inner city folks in question. Not ALL the inner city folks, but by SOME inner city folks (and NO "original" suburban folks, as the behavior was not there before inner city folks started moving in). If it were possible to separate the offenders from the majority of the new people who mind their business I'm sure the complaints would be more directed- but without keeping tabs on each and every new person it's impossible to make that distinction.

For example on my old block in CH, pretty much everyone was cool, but there was one building with a lot of disruptive kids and a crackhead that I had problems with. My girlfriend had been threatened by some of the kids, and the crackhead stole one of my bikes (which I wound up getting back from him). While those people weren't representative of the whole block at all, their presence had enough of an impact on us that they were a major factor in us moving out. If that building wasn't on that block, maybe we would have stayed. But it was.

One can argue about what makes for acceptable quality of life or whatever, but in my opinion when you put someone else's safety or property into jeopardy you've crossed into unacceptable behavior territory, and in my experience there is a higher incidence of people in the inner city who do that. For people in a neighborhood, especially a neighborhood in which most people living there own property, I don't think it's unfair at all to establish some standards of behavior. If not, HOA & behavioral clauses in apartment leases would have no legal ground.

[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

Cool,I see where you are coming from. You tried to lay it out and give more flesh to your arguments. But when it comes down to it both these sentences are still problematic:
*I dont want to live near poor inner city people
*I dont want to live near black people

So what would giving gentrifiers the benefit of the doubt look like? I am breaking down what gentrifiers have said in these articles. So if what they say makes them looks ignorant its not on me. If you start from the beginning you can see I have never said that all gentrifiers are the devil.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Trumystic
getting it
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 104

And I guess the "for the sake of equity" comment doesnt hold weight with me. To whom much is given much is required etc etc etc. Gentrifiers (white or black) have more economic power so I am less inclined to cut them slack if they display class based prejudice.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Cool The Kid
We out this mother effer
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 1,385

I still don't see the problem with the first statement. It's no different to me than saying something like 'i dont want to go to a party school as chances are higher that i will be exposed to underage drinking', for example. Not everyone at a school known for partying will be engaging in said activity, but its higher documented incidences of such activity compared to other school lends it that reputation. Likewise, inner cities are known and shown for having higher incidences of crime & quality of life issues which are not borne out of the inanimate objects there... they are caused by some of the people. And as the Detroit article shows, when large enough groups of said people move together some of them carry those behaviors with them. I don't get how that is wrong to say, it's merely stating what happens.

If you know there's a drug spot on a block that has shootings & illegal activity, I don't see why it would be wrong to avoid that block, despite all the other good things it has to offer. For many people the whole inner city is that block, for better or worse.

And as far as equity goes, if standards of behavior for different groups are arbitrary & up to individuals it's impossible to set expectations or have any kind of meaningful debate. I.e. it's silly to say 'well yea those kids shouldn't be out running thru ppl's yards at 3 in the morning but theyre from the hood cut them some slack' and then chastise gentrifiers. Especially when the displaced should really be directing their anger towards city agencies enabling gentrification and the landlords who facilitate the whole process. Gentrifiers are also many times victims of rent hikes and displacement... like I said, nobody would move somewhere where they are an unwanted outsider unless they had no other choice.

[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,369

A now, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" from the cast of Ave Q.

Not addressed to anyone in particular, of course.....

[+] Embed this video

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

...I looked for "Everyone's a Little Bit Classist", but they wanted money for it. (as you might expect, they really like money)

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mr. met
rocking it
Joined: Dec '07
Posts: 1,407

Gentrifiers (white or black) have more economic power so I am less inclined to cut them slack if they display class based prejudice.

love the logic

# Posted 2 yrs ago
nearnostrand
getting it
Joined: Jun '08
Posts: 189

# Posted 2 yrs ago
nearnostrand
getting it
Joined: Jun '08
Posts: 189

There's always a bit of truth in comedy.

# Posted 2 yrs ago