David Bernstein takes a look at the bargaining and negotating that got the NAACP to hold its national convention in Boston in 2020.
I thought you were saying they'd decided not to come, as though there were a comma before "because."
Maybe a better headline would be "NAACP coming to Boston, but not because of our record on race relations"
Boston is an extremely segregated / divided city.
It is not possible for one of the most liberal regions in the country to be one of the most racist. I refuse to believe it.
Theres a whole Boston Globe series from last year that could help you understand.
The Boston Globe set out to show proof that Boston is the most racist city in America, but some of their data was lacking. I will highlight two points.
First, sports. The classic refrain is that the Boston Red Sox were the last team in Major League Baseball to field and African American player is proof, but that ignores the fact several years before Pumpsie Green, the Boston Braves fielded the 1950 Rookie of the Year, Sam Jethroe. The Boston Celtics drafted the first African American, fielded the first all African American starting lineup, and had the first African American coach (yet the only thing mentioned about the Celtics is some bad things done to a few players decades ago). The Boston Bruins dressed and played the first Black hockey player, Willie O'Ree, a feat that could have been accomplished by the Toronto Maple Leafs with Herb Carnegie, who was good enough to play in the six team NHL, and would have if, in the alleged words of Toronto's GM, someone could have turned him white. And speaking of Toronto, remember all those racist tweets when P.K. Subban helped the Canadiens oust the Bruins from the playoffs a few years back- they mostly came from Ontario.
Second politics. The Globe saw a bit sign of racism within the City of Boston the fact the Boston had never elected a person of color as mayor. Of course, that ignored the fact that anyone who is 50 years old today and spent their entire lives in Boston has lived through 4 mayors total, with the terms being 16 years, 10ish years, 20ish years, and 6 years and counting. They ignored that non-whites have been getting elected in Boston, and indeed going outside the city, the cities of Newton and Framingham, neither known for their black populations, have both elected black mayors.
If someone wanted to show proof that Boston is a welcoming city for Black people, the case could be made, as a real case that Boston is less welcoming than, say, Atlanta or Washington DC. At the end of the day, it is mostly perception.
I am glad that City Hall made the push, and I hope that we shine while the convention is in town.
Spoken like a true Mass. White person. Never fails.
But perhaps if one could show that black people in places like St. Louis or Detroit have things great, I'd be more inclined to agree that the plight of black people in Boston is the worst amongst major cities in the US.
I repeat my last point above. If someone wants to show that Boston is the most racist city in the US, one could find items to support it. If someone wanted to show the Boston, or indeed Massachusetts, is full of open minded white people, one could find items to support that (like being one of only two states to elect African American governors since Reconstruction, to start.)
Isn't about the substantive things like the numbers, etc. It's the knee-jerk reaction to be defensive, disagree, and then "prove why we're not the most racist," (which isn't exactly a badge of honor) rather than take criticism and address problems that do exist and figure out how to fix them and build a more equitable community.
edit: a word.
And there were a lot of things in the article that were spot on, but with some of the things I mentioned, it does seem like they were piling on.
And I think one thing should be clear, while I will swear that Boston (or the Boston area) is not the worst, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot we should be working on (or should be ashamed of.)
One thing to be ashamed of is the reflex to say "But we're not the worst!" like that means anything or helps anyone.
Talking about how the other kids did worse is a child's excuse. This is a local fix, Waquoit - it's not like we have to stand around waiting for some other city to come up to our (low) standard before we forge ahead.
Boston may be bad, but it's not the worst. The Globe cherry picked stats (yes, Denver and Portland Oregon have had African American mayors, but Colorado and Oregon have not had African American governors, so what's the point with that.) While I think we don't have to beat our breasts and don sackcloth and ashes, we do have work to do. But looking this around, just because we have work to do, that don't mean that we are the worst.
When there's a shooting, occasionally a poster will pop up here and note that since Boston "only" has 40 to 50 murders a year, we are safe, using the comparison to places like Chicago, Memphis, and Baltimore. That said, compared to cities in Europe (including London per capita) we are unsafe. Same thing with race in Boston. That we have occasional newsworthy events involving race in Boston is better than one might find in other parts of the country, but that don't mean that the events are okay.
But looking this around, just because we have work to do, that don't mean that we are the worst.
The point, I think, is that what I quoted is a frivolous act, or, at best, it's just trying to shield white folks from criticism. Like, it must be very reassuring to people of color to say to them "hey, look, those other cities have it worse than us," as if that's supposed to be comforting.
Were the point of the Globe article to show that black people are worse off than white people in Boston, or better yet the Boston area (they bounced around throughout the series,) that could have been easily done. Going comparative was a bad move, since again they had to grab at a few things that were very, very tenuous. To wit, would one point to Detroit having a white mayor with an overwhelmingly black electorate or Chicago having white mayors for the past 28 years despite it being majority-minority since the 1980s be proof that they are inhospitable cities for African Americans, or could one dive deeper?
The Globe was lazy. I will always call them out on that.
You are a white internet poster who promotes minority politics. You have no reason to be "ashamed" of some racist thing someone else did. Most minorities could care less what you think anyway.
White people are permanently depressed about bad things done by people in their tribe. (Legacy of Catholic/Protestant guilt? Perceived social cache? Who knows?) Indian castes were based in part on what you would call racism, yet if you tried to shame a Brahmin descended bro about it he would be like "yeah, whatever dude, haha."
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with anything I wrote. I wrote about how the "but some other place is worse!" attitude is a lame copout and something to be ashamed of. Try again.
(and it's "cachet", btw)
I read posts from Good Posters such as adamg, u-hub fan, kinopio, SwirlyGrrl, erik g, cybah, and OriginallyFromDotParker. I have little time to read Bad Posts from TrophyWifeLinda, lbb, capecoddah, Stevil, and Ari O.
Thanks for acknowledging that you're just here to shitpost, then.
If you think Boston is one of the most racist places in the U.S. then you haven't traveled much.
Talk to some people who aren't the same color as you.
It's not the liberals that are the problem.
Most of the racist behavior my children of color experience is from self-professed liberals.
...people who tell you "I don't have a racist bone in my body", that's not what I'd call liberals.
(but perhaps this is not who you mean)
I wouldn't call them liberal, or progressive, but these are people who vote democrat and state they're very much against racism.
Don't forget Saturday Night Live proclaimed Boston "the most racist city in America."
That might also have something to do with it.
I still hope this convention has a bouncy castle.
Obama won Massachusetts, Ayanna Pressely won, Boston is not a racist city.
-- Suffolk County Massachusetts, which represents the heart of the Boston-Cambridge-Newton part of New England, appears to be the most politically intolerant county in the US. --
The finest researchers came up with the most important facts.
-- Suffolk County fits closely with what researchers identified as America’s most politically intolerant bunch: “woke white liberals.” --
-- Diana Mutz, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor who has found “that white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity.” --
Your link goes to a study claiming that Suffolk County is the most politically intolerant place in the country. Politics is not race, duh. In fact, the word race does not appear anywhere in the article, so your headline "Boston is racist as AF" is a total non-sequitur.
Your article is a right-wing screed, cherry-picking data from a polling company survey. How slanted is it? They claim Watertown, NY is the most politically-tolerant place in the US, and that it voted for Trump by a large margin. They never bother to mention that it's a military town, heavily dependent on, and populated by soldiers stationed at Fort Drum. More duh.
The topic here is not how persecuted you right-wingers are; it's racism. Try and keep up.
Newton and Cambridge are in Middlesex County, not Suffolk.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy