That's racist! update.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

In Over The Rhine; a rather gentrified neighborhood close to downtown Cincinnati, sits a place called Findlay Market. Every weekend, there is a pop-up farmer's market that takes up neighboring parking areas in addition to Findlay Market itself.

It is the single most diverse place that I go on any sort of regular basis.

The market was there pre-gentrification, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's always been diverse, whether it was white people shopping in a poor neighborhood, or minorities shopping in a hipster neighborhood.

This may be different in other places, but this is how it works at one of Cincinnati's most famous landmarks.

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2018, 11:16 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: In Over The Rhine; a rather gentrified neighborhood close to downtown Cincinnati, sits a place called Findlay Market. Every weekend, there is a pop-up farmer's market that takes up neighboring parking areas in addition to Findlay Market itself.

It is the single most diverse place that I go on any sort of regular basis.

The market was there pre-gentrification, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's always been diverse, whether it was white people shopping in a poor neighborhood, or minorities shopping in a hipster neighborhood.

This may be different in other places, but this is how it works at one of Cincinnati's most famous landmarks.

Here are some questions I have about it.

1. You mention diversity, which I am assuming is based on race/ethnicity. Do you know the socioeconomic diversity? Has this diversity changed since the gentrification of the area?

2. As the neighborhood has become gentrified, has the market changed? Has there been a switch in the vendors? Have prices risen beyond what is normal for the rise in inflation? Have the products changed (more "organic", more artisanal items, etc.)?

I ask these because when we look at the surface of things we can often miss what may be going on. I don't know the specifics for this market. Hell, you may not have any good answers to my questions. But these things are what we look at in the social sciences when we look at something like the gentrification of an area and a farmers' market in the same place. What is easiest to see isn't going to tell you much very often.

For my general response to this thread, and not to Johnny directly: Really, the biggest issue with the article is that it used race in it, which just throws everyone into a tizzy. Everyone rushes to denounce it because, surely, we live in a post-racial society and race has nothing to do with anything and we just need to ignore race and everything will be better. Ignoring race in such a way, though, is ignoring the mountains of evidence that exist to show that minorities are not provided with equitable treatment in this country. I'm specifically saying equity, here, not equality. Equity is the equal access to opportunity, equal treatment by the law.

We are not at the point where people of color are in an equitable situation in this country, and there are systemic issues that are the reason for it. The fact that everyone thinks if we just ignore race it will all go away does nothing but provide further evidence of this systemic issue.

Could the authors of this article ignored the race component and focused purely on socioeconomics? Sure. But then what do we do about the next layer that shows that minorities face a wealth gap, an income gap, are less socioeconomically mobile, etc? Those are components of the socioeconomic layers and so to talk about these issues without recognizing the racial component means that any approach to addressing them is not going to be in a holistic manner.

I'm an FDR Democrat, but I criticize the New Deal because it ignored the racial component to the socioeconomic issues in this country. There were policies that left minorities behind, and some outright hurt them further. If we are going to address these issues in our society, we have to look at the racial component and not bury our heads in the sand.

[BmorePat87]

(01-09-2018, 12:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Problems such as Farmer's Markets?

2funny. 

No, the author clearly states that gentrification is the problem. 

[Dill]

(01-09-2018, 12:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Problems these authors address will prevail as long as folks dismiss them by claiming it is "racist" to discuss anything involving race. Once we start focusing on the issues involving race, then we can advance. 

If by "focusing on the issues involving race" you mean undertake the kind of social-science based research which helps us understand how race continues to affect the economy and politics in the US, then I agree.

And I agree that people should read the source of claims about farmers markets and gentrification to discern the authors' intent, method and evidence before offering counter examples based upon "the farmers market where I live" or dismissing the work from the get go because someone said "race."  Do the authors claim to describe all farmers/community markets or are they talking about developing trends in certain places?  Does the evidence offered support their hypothesis?

Getting the authors claims and evidence straight from the get go would spare the thread the usual red herrings based upon misreading or refusal to read.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2018, 02:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Getting the authors claims and evidence straight from the get go would spare the thread the usual red herrings based upon misreading or refusal to read.  

That would require individuals seeking out the source material and reading it critically rather than relying on a media outlet to pick out the most salacious bits intended to incite the masses, no matter how unrepresentative it is of the overall work. This is not going to happen, for many reasons.

[*bfine32*]

I read the source document and still found it to focus on race. of course I've never claimed to be as "open-minded' as the left; however, when the first paragraph of your paper is titled White Privilege and the paragraph goes on to expound on this "privilege" (aka safe places for white folk) I'd say the paper's focus on race is a little more than a Red Herring. Hell, the author admits to adding race to the equation.

All I've gotten so far is that these markets are racist (or causes "gentrification") because they "cater to white folks". How do they do that exactly? Only sell mayonnaise... I make a joke because the whole premise is absolutely ludicrous. The left cannot find any examples of overt racism so they have to fabricate covert examples such as farmer's markets.

[BmorePat87]

(01-09-2018, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I read the source document and still found it to focus on race. of course I've never claimed to be as "open-minded' as the left; however, when the first paragraph of your paper is titled White Privilege and the paragraph goes on to expound on this "privilege" (aka safe places for white folk) I'd say the paper's focus on race is a little more than a Red Herring. Hell, the author admits to adding race to the equation.

All I've gotten so far is that these markets are racist (or causes "gentrification") because they "cater to white folks". How do they do that exactly? Only sell mayonnaise... I make a joke because the whole premise is absolutely ludicrous.  

You claim to have read the chapter but then go on to misrepresent the entire thing. 

2funny

Quote:The left cannot find any examples of overt racism

Didn't a bunch of armed white supremacist march around a town yelling Nazi slogans a few months ago because people wanted to take down statues for guys who fought to enslave black people? I think I read about that somewhere. 

2funny

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2018, 09:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You claim to have read the chapter but then go on to misrepresent the entire thing. 

2funny


Didn't a bunch of armed white supremacist march around a town yelling Nazi slogans a few months ago because people wanted to take down statues for guys who fought to enslave black people? I think I read about that somewhere. 

2funny

Meh. I've spent too much time on this issue already. You and others give merit to the fact that Farmers Markets are divisive; I put the onus more on those that try to make the correlation. But I do appreciate your letting me know I misrepresented the article that focused on race by its own admission. 

As to the reference to Charlottesville: Of course many marching that day are racists; however, I'm not 100% sure their actions can be constituted as racism. I am not sure who they discriminated against. 

[Dill]

(01-09-2018, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I read the source document and still found it to focus on race. of course I've never claimed to be as "open-minded' as the left; however, when the first paragraph of your paper is titled White Privilege and the paragraph goes on to expound on this "privilege" (aka safe places for white folk) I'd say the paper's focus on race is a little more than a Red Herring. Hell, the author admits to adding race to the equation.

All I've gotten so far is that these markets are racist (or causes "gentrification") because they "cater to white folks". How do they do that exactly? Only sell mayonnaise... I make a joke because the whole premise is absolutely ludicrous.  The left cannot find any examples of overt racism so they have to fabricate covert examples such as farmer's markets.

Did you notice the book in question was an anthology, collecting a number of essays on the subject of "environmental gentrification"?

The premise is that environmental improvements in many city spaces tend to eventually drive up real estate prices and become unaffordable for poor and immigrants. That premise can be either proved or disproved by case studies and data. The editors of the book outline a strategy called "just green enough" to incorporate neighborhood improvements without triggering the gentrification problem. 

The analysis of markets, among other things, fits into this argument. The point is not to call farmers markets "racist" but to understand how their implementation may, in certain places, have effects quite other than those intended.

What "first paragraph" are you refering to? Seems to me you are still addressing the Fox news representation of the book, with its collection of "trigger" phrases for the Fox audience, not the book itself.

[BmorePat87]

(01-09-2018, 10:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh. I've spent too much time on this issue already. You and others give merit to the fact that Farmers Markets are divisive; I put the onus more on those that try to make the correlation. But I do appreciate your letting me know I misrepresented the article that focused on race by its own admission. 

As to the reference to Charlottesville: Of course many marching that day are racists; however, I'm not 100% sure their actions can be constituted as racism. I am not sure who they discriminated against. 

I think a lot of us waste too much time on you. Hell, you can't even decide if yelling Nazi slogans that call for a white only nation is 100% racist. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-10-2018, 06:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think a lot of us waste too much time on you. Hell, you can't even decide if yelling Nazi slogans that call for a white only nation is 100% racist. 

Obviously didn't waste too much time reading what I wrote. I have said a great number of times many of the idiots that marched down that street were racist. I consider racism to be more doctrinal. 

This is the last time I'll say it: I don't consider a bunch of idiots marching down the street shouting stupid shit to be racism. I guess I just give it less merit than many

[BmorePat87]

(01-10-2018, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously didn't waste too much time reading what I wrote. I have said a great number of times many of the idiots that marched down that street were racist. I consider racism to be more doctrinal. 

This is the last time I'll say it: I don't consider a bunch of idiots marching down the street shouting stupid shit to be racism. I guess I just give it less merit than many

and I consider yelling Nazi slogans that call for a white only nation to be racist. A difference of opinion, right?

[*bfine32*]

(01-11-2018, 09:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and I consider yelling Nazi slogans that call for a white only nation to be racist. A difference of opinion, right?

I actually think it's a difference of being able to read the word that is typed and referred to. I don't know how many more times I can type that I am describing the word racism; not racist.


It's like an SNL skit; every time I refer to the word racism and explain that my thoughts on the word are more tied to doctrinal and systemic than they are a bunch of idiots marching around singing; the ******** cousin keeps using a different word. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-11-2018, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I actually think it's a difference of being able to read the word that is typed and referred to. I don't know how many more times I can type that I am describing the word racism; not racist.


It's like an SNL skit; every time I refer to the word racism and explain that my thoughts on the word are more tied to doctrinal and systemic than they are a bunch of idiots marching around singing; the ******** cousin keeps using a different word. 

Considering the example I gave was "armed white supremacists march around a town yelling nazi slogans", I am not referring to a generic march (with singing... 2funny) but rather the specific instance of people proclaiming white supremacists views and yelling Nazis slogans while they march. I understand the need on your part for moving the goal posts, but I'm sticking with my specific example.  

Also, spread the word to end the word. Using "********" as an insult is trashy and insulting to many children I know.

[*bfine32*]

(01-12-2018, 08:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Considering the example I gave was "armed white supremacists march around a town yelling nazi slogans", I am not referring to a generic march (with singing... 2funny) but rather the specific instance of people proclaiming white supremacists views and yelling Nazis slogans while they march. I understand the need on your part for moving the goal posts, but I'm sticking with my specific example.  

Also, spread the word to end the word. Using "********" as an insult is trashy and insulting to many children I know.

No goal post has been moved, it's just for some reason you find it necessary to use a word other that the one I am referring to. I have stated from the beginning that I do not consider folks marching, singing, and carrying signs as racism. I consider racism to be more doctrinal and systemic. I have zero idea how this equates to me being racist . I'm further not sure why it matters if the march was "generic" or name brand; perhaps you could explain. On second though, never mind, you'll just reply using the term racist; as I'm sure you will also stick by your word; although it is not the one being discussed.


My apologies if your sensibilities were damaged by using the word ******** to refer to an SNL skit; I I assumed they would exaggerate the charter to such an extent that the name would be fitting.  

 

[GMDino]

(01-12-2018, 12:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No goal post has been moved, it's just for some reason you find it necessary to use a word other that the one I am referring to. I have stated from the beginning that I do not consider folks marching, singing, and carrying signs as racism. I consider racism to be more doctrinal and systemic. I have zero idea how this equates to me being racist . I'm further not sure why it matters if the march was "generic" or name brand; perhaps you could explain. On second though, never mind, you'll just reply using the term racist; as I'm sure you will also stick by your word; although it is not the one being discussed.


My apologies if your sensibilities were damaged by using the word ******** to refer to an SNL skit; I I assumed they would exaggerate the charter to such an extent that the name would be fitting.  

 

If it is based in systemic racism and they are saying racist things, but it is NOT racism or they are NOT racist...what word would you use to describe it and them?

[*bfine32*]

(01-12-2018, 12:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: If it is based in systemic racism and they are saying racist things, but it is NOT racism or they are NOT racist...what word would you use to describe it and them?

I would use racist to describe them; I have repeatedly called them racists. Is my keyboard not working or something?

[GMDino]

(01-12-2018, 12:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would use racist to describe them; I have repeatedly called them racists. Is my keyboard not working or something?

Maybe I get it now:

Are you saying because their actions/words are not directly affecting someone they are not ACTS of RACISM despite them being racists?

Where as if the marched on a black church or synagogue  (for example) and did the same it WOULD be racism because it was directed AT the subject of their racism.

In other words: You can be racist and say racist things without it being racism based on the motivation and audience.

Am I close?  

[Millhouse]

After all these years of buying white sweet corn at our local farmers markets, aka silver queen or king corn which is some of the best corn on the planet, I have been supporting a social racist apparatus.

If someone actually thinks that, oh well, won't stop me from shopping at farmers markets. Idiots.

[BmorePat87]

(01-12-2018, 12:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No goal post has been moved, it's just for some reason you find it necessary to use a word other that the one I am referring to. I have stated from the beginning that I do not consider folks marching, singing, and carrying signs as racism. I consider racism to be more doctrinal and systemic. I have zero idea how this equates to me being racist . I'm further not sure why it matters if the march was "generic" or name brand; perhaps you could explain. On second though, never mind, you'll just reply using the term racist; as I'm sure you will also stick by your word; although it is not the one being discussed.


My apologies if your sensibilities were damaged by using the word ******** to refer to an SNL skit; I I assumed they would exaggerate the charter to such an extent that the name would be fitting.  

 

It's because I was the first one to bring up this specific march and from the moment I did, you felt it necessary to use a different example than the one I referred to... I am trying to get back to what was being discussed, not what you've moved the example to...

I also didn't call you racist, so calm down. 

You don't need to defend your trashy comment, I just felt the need to tell you it was trashy given my profession.