So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[tonyb]

Nice to hear a good "overpriced" real estate story - glad it is making a comfortable retirement for you. In truth, since every high-priced transaction has both a buyer and seller, there should be a lot more good stories out there than there seem to be.

We were happy to take three and a half times the price we paid for a house some 16 years earlier, but mostly because we needed a large chunk of that gain to put another roof over our heads, a house which itself was priced a whole lot higher than it was a couple of decades back.

That place we sold is next door to the house my since-deceased brother bought in 1975, at a price so low I don't mention it lest people think I'm lying. That district was widely (but largely inaccurately) perceived as "rough" back then. It was populated by far fewer white people than it is now, which I am confident had much to do with those old misperceptions.

There are few people so self-delusional and self-congratulatory as those pale-faced recent arrivals to that district who prattle on about how they treasure the "diversity" there.

My old block was predominantly black when my brother and the gal who would become his wife moved in. It was still home to a few black households when my wife and I bought our place. The last black holdout is the fellow who owns the place immediately to the west of my old house. And he's about 80 now.

I'm every bit as melanin challenged as any of those newcomers. But, unlike many of them, I would never characterize myself as an "urban pioneer" or a "savior" of the district. And, unlike many of them, I recognize my own racism. I'm not proud of it, and I wish it wasn't so. But I have lived more than six full decades in a racist society. I am of that society. I am steeped in it. It's the world I know. The best I can hope to do is to remain mindful of that and try not to make it someone else's problem.

 

[MisterCairo]

You sure wear your turtlenecks high!

It's a look with a long history:

 

[tonyb]

...

My wife expects to retire in four years, and we hope to sell our home, downsize a bit, and move to the Portland Oregon area. Goal is no mortgage, and perhaps a small cash surplus. If all goes well, we intend to buy a relatively low maintenance home or townhouse and do a lot of travelling. I'm a 4th generation Chicagoan... never really lived anywhere else, but am totally psyched on enjoying the Pacific Northwest.

I moved to Seattle as an adolescent, in 1968. I had lived most of my life to that point in Madison, Wisc., the city of my birth, with short sojourns in Atlanta and Lawrence, Kansas along the way.

There's much to like about the Maritime Northwest. The scenery ranges from pleasant to spectacular. The larger settlements are chock full of cultural diversions. And the weather is generally agreeable. It rarely gets oppressively hot or cold.

But one thing I never adjusted to was the persistent cloud cover. It's not that it's ALWAYS cloudy, but it often is, for days and weeks on end.

But the good news, especially for people with time on their hands, is that it is reliably sunny east of the Cascade Range, and you can get there in a couple hours from Portland or Seattle. I frequently bopped over to Ellensburg or Yakima on a whim, just to catch some rays. It truly is a whole nuther world over there.

 

[Fading Fast]

We were happy to take three and a half times the price we paid for a house some 16 years earlier, but mostly because we needed a large chunk of that gain to put another roof over our heads, a house which itself was priced a whole lot higher than it was a couple of decades back.

That place we sold is next door to the house my since-deceased brother bought in 1975, at a price so low I don't mention it lest people think I'm lying. That district was widely (but largely inaccurately) perceived as "rough" back then. It was populated by far fewer white people than it is now, which I am confident had much to do with those old misperceptions.

There are few people so self-delusional and self-congratulatory as those pale-faced recent arrivals to that district who prattle on about how they treasure the "diversity" there.

My old block was predominantly black when my brother and the gal who would become his wife moved in. It was still home to a few black households when my wife and I bought our place. The last black holdout is the fellow who owns the place immediately to the west of my old house. And he's about 80 now.

I'm every bit as melanin challenged as any of those newcomers. But, unlike many of them, I would never characterize myself as an "urban pioneer" or a "savior" of the district. And, unlike many of them, I recognize my own racism. I'm not proud of it, and I wish it wasn't so. But I have lived more than six full decades in a racist society. I am of that society. I am steeped in it. It's the world I know. The best I can hope to do is to remain mindful of that and try not to make it someone else's problem.

If this ⇧ is fair to say than so is this: I am immensely proud of the strides this country and its people have made against racism / toward being an inclusive country. Is it perfect, is it near perfect - no, not even close. But judged against history and alternatives, I am proud to be a white American and proud of all that everyone - of every background - has tried to do in this country in my lifetime to make America better. Versus cosmic justice, we fall short / versus the real world, I hold my head up high with, hopefully, many other Americans of every background.

Please delete if this is too political, but if my (in my heart) good friend's Tony B's post is fine, then so should be this one.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are few people so self-delusional and self-congratulatory as those pale-faced recent arrivals to that district who prattle on about how they treasure the "diversity" there.

The thing with gentrification of this type is that it pretty much always destroys *real* diversity.

 

[tonyb]

The thing with gentrification of this type is that it pretty much always destroys *real* diversity.

In many of our country's larger metropolitan areas, racial "diversity" has shifted to the suburbs, largely in response to economic pressures. The "inner city," which was once almost synonymous with (and euphemistic for) "predominantly black," is now where the younger crowd with some scratch to throw around wishes to be. And that bunch is whiter overall than those they have displaced. Much whiter.

The legacy of slavery is glaringly obvious to anyone who cares to look at the economic status of the descendants of those enslaved people. Sure, the lot of black Americans is a damn sight better than it was even in my early years. De jure discrimination on the basis of race has largely been addressed, but de facto racism is still very much with us. Compare household wealth of black folks with that of whites.

What I pray we avoid, though, is pitting those decidedly not wealthy white folks, of which there are more than a few, against black folks. Martin Luther King Jr. was addressing that very matter when he met his earthly end. (Interesting to note that MLK's overall popularity during his lifetime was well below 50 percent. White people in general thought him an uppity negro who was just stirring up all the colored rabble. By the end of the century, he was sainted and even the reddest of the red state pol now knows to honor his memory. Publicly, anyway.)

 

[tonyb]

If this ⇧ is fair to say than so is this: I am immensely proud of the strides this country and its people have made against racism / toward being an inclusive country. Is it perfect, is it near perfect - no, not even close. But judged against history and alternatives, I am proud to be a white American and proud of all that everyone - of every background - has tried to do in this country in my lifetime to make America better. Versus cosmic justice, we fall short / versus the real world, I hold my head up high with, hopefully, many other Americans of every background.

Please delete if this is too political, but if my (in my heart) good friend's Tony B's post is fine, then so should be this one.

If I were to take exception with anything in your post, FF, it is your use of "proud."

No longer mistreating people as severely as we once did is a step in the right direction. But consider the domestic abuser. Should he be proud that he no longer leaves the little missus with visible contusions?

 

[LizzieMaine]

What I pray we avoid, though, is pitting those decidedly not wealthy white folks, of which there are more than a few, against black folks. Martin Luther King Jr. was addressing that very matter when he met his earthly end. (Interesting to note that MLK's overall popularity during his lifetime was well below 50 percent. White people in general thought him an uppity negro who was just stirring up all the colored rabble. By the end of the century, he was sainted and even the reddest of the red state pol now knows to honor his memory. Publicly, anyway.)

Racism is the ultimate tool of class division, promoted and perpetuated to keep the working class fragmented and powerless. At the end of his life, this was the gist of Dr. King's message. Funny how so many of those who've turned him into Plastic Jesus stopped listening to him after 1963.

 

[tonyb]

Racism is the ultimate tool of class division, promoted and perpetuated to keep the working class fragmented and powerless. At the end of his life, this was the gist of Dr. King's message. Funny how so many of those who've turned him into Plastic Jesus stopped listening to him after 1963.

Exactly. He was indeed a dangerous man. Which of course fuels conspiracy theories about his murder. I can only imagine the words he would have for so many who have appropriated his legacy and made of it something quite other than what he actually said and did.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Racism is the ultimate tool of class division, promoted and perpetuated to keep the working class fragmented and powerless.

Religion and nationalism run a close second. At day's end they're all part of the same insane tribalism deployed to divert attention from the real issue: class warfare that is the inevitable by- product of extreme economic disparity.

And no: I'm not a Marxist. I embrace economic determinism with a zeal that most Marxists would condemn.

 

[ChiTownScion]

I moved to Seattle as an adolescent, in 1968. I had lived most of my life to that point in Madison, Wisc., the city of my birth, with short sojourns in Atlanta and Lawrence, Kansas along the way.

There's much to like about the Maritime Northwest. The scenery ranges from pleasant to spectacular. The larger settlements are chock full of cultural diversions. And the weather is generally agreeable. It rarely gets oppressively hot or cold.

But one thing I never adjusted to was the persistent cloud cover. It's not that it's ALWAYS cloudy, but it often is, for days and weeks on end.

But the good news, especially for people with time on their hands, is that it is reliably sunny east of the Cascade Range, and you can get there in a couple hours from Portland or Seattle. I frequently bopped over to Ellensburg or Yakima on a whim, just to catch some rays. It truly is a whole nuther world over there.

Already planning those extended B&B weekends. Mrs. Scion and I will, I hope, be lighting out in a little 2- seat convertible.... acting like a couple of crazed twenty- somethings in a manner that we couldn't afford when we really were twenty- somethings.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've never bought, or even understood the "This is the best damn piece of dirt in the world because I happen to be standing on it" mentality.

 

[tonyb]

A lovely coincidence ...

As I type this, a radio station out of Boulder is playing a recording of King's 1967 speech at the Riverside Church in NYC.

Oh yeah, he pissed off people in high places, for sure. Don't ever mistake his nonviolent tactics for cowardice.

 

[tonyb]

Already planning those extended B&B weekends. Mrs. Scion and I will, I hope, be lighting out in a little 2- seat convertible.... acting like a couple of crazed twenty- somethings in a manner that we couldn't afford when we really were twenty- somethings.

I'm jealous. It's beautiful country. You'll love it.

 

[Fading Fast]

If I were to take exception with anything in your post, FF, it is your use of "proud."

No longer mistreating people as severely as we once did is a step in the right direction. But consider the domestic abuser. Should he be proud that he no longer leaves the little missus with visible contusions?

I'm going to do my best to stay away from the above posts and topics as they seem pretty political and I promise myself everyday to not go there on this site out of respect for the site's rules (and my sanity). So I am trying to respond just to the very specific consideration you raised to me about a domestic abuser.

I do not believe the premise underlying your analogy is apt. The domestic abuser - I believe you are implying (if I'm wrong, please tell me and I will openly acknowledge my mistake) should have known by cultural and societal norms and convention what he was do was morally wrong and legally wrong. Hence, no longer beating his wife is hardly a moment for pride. I agree with that.

Many of this country's past sins began at a time when they - slavery for one - were an accepted norm and practice by many (not all) cultures in many (not all) countries. Hence, I don't see our country changing its norms and laws for the much better over the long sweep of history - where norms, standards, practices have changed - as the same as a criminal today renouncing his immediate criminal past behavior. I see it as a country doing a lot wrong, but eventually also getting a lot right over a long period of time. That's what I'm proud of. But again, out of respect to the forum rules and other members, I'm trying real hard to only answer your query to me - I don't want to open this up any wider than it is or respond to any of the subsequent posts.

 

[tonyb]

..,

I do not believe the premise underlying your analogy is apt. The domestic abuser - I believe you are implying (if I'm wrong, please tell me and I will openly acknowledge my mistake) should have known by cultural and societal norms and convention what he was do was morally wrong and legally wrong. Hence, no longer beating his wife is hardly a moment for pride. I agree with that.

Many of this country's past sins began at a time when they - slavery for one - were an accepted norm and practice by many (not all) cultures in many (not all) countries. Hence, I don't see our country changing its norms and laws for the much better over the long sweep of history - where norms, standards, practices have changed - as the same as a criminal today renouncing his immediate criminal past behavior. I see it as a country doing a lot wrong, but eventually also getting a lot right over a long period of time. That's what I'm proud of. But again, out of respect to the forum rules and other members, I'm trying real hard to only answer your query to me - I don't want to open this up any wider than it is or respond to any of the subsequent posts.

There was a time, not so long ago, when it was acceptable and even encouraged for the male head of the household to enforce his will upon his wife and children through violent means. Even within my lifetime, law enforcement often looked the other way when there was clear evidence and first-hand testimony to such physical abuse. (Note that to this day you are very unlikely to hear that "a WOMAN'S home is her castle.")

In both cases -- slavery and domestic violence -- one class of people is deemed the property of another, to do with as that other sees fit (within certain limitations, even back a couple of centuries ago).

So the comparison is quite fitting. But yes, we all breathe the air of our times. Certain practices deemed normal and acceptable in our benighted age may not be in some enlightened future. I sure hope so, anyway, before we do ourselves in through our own hubris.

 

[Fading Fast]

There was a time, not so long ago, when it was acceptable and even encouraged for the male head of the household to enforce his will upon his wife and children through violent means. Even within my lifetime, law enforcement often looked the other way when there was clear evidence and first-hand testimony to such physical abuse. (Note that to this day you are very unlikely to hear that "a WOMAN'S home is her castle.")

In both cases -- slavery and domestic violence -- one class of people is deemed the property of another, to do with as that other sees fit (within certain limitations, even back a couple of centuries ago).

So the comparison is quite fitting. But yes, we all breathe the air of our times. Certain practices deemed normal and acceptable in our benighted age may not be in some enlightened future. I sure hope so, anyway, before we do ourselves in through our own hubris.

This is why I avoid these exchanges when I'm smart enough too. I still see differences, but, on my part, I'm going to agree to disagree and let my previous post's explanation persuade others or not. I respect your view - sincerely, but I'm out of the conversation.

 

[tonyb]

Did I ever say there weren't differences?

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

Exactly. He was indeed a dangerous man. Which of course fuels conspiracy theories about his murder. I can only imagine the words he would have for so many who have appropriated his legacy and made of it something quite other than what he actually said and did.

The three men J. Edgar Hoover hated above all others were JFK, RFK and MLK. He was absolutely obsessive in his loathing of King. All three were murdered within 5 years by obscure, deranged assassins. If that's not fodder for conspiracy theory I don't know what is.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Hoover had no problem manufacturing evidence wherever he possibly could to attack his "enemies," and it isn't a great stretch of the imagination to think that he didn't occasionally kick it up a notch.

I suspect you might also be able to add Malcolm X to the list, if not directly then thru COINTELPRO infiltration of the NOI faction that actually committed the killing.