Sean Frederick posts a photo of one of the "scads" of South End resident-parking signs the city put up last month on Columbus Avenue west of Mass. Ave., which has traditionally been the dividing line between the CamelCase-friendly areas of the South End and Lower Roxbury. WeMa comes that much closer.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
LoRo
By Ron Newman
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:51pm
Early Christmas Present for Aoun
By greenlinetobrooklyn
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:14pm
NU's president Aoun has got to be siked that the South End is taking over the Roxbury portion of the campus.
Nothing new
By eekanotloggedin
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:40pm
Hammond street and Lenox street had South End permits three years ago.
Um, Mass Ave has never been
By Haviland
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:10pm
Um, Mass Ave has never been the dividing line between Boston and Roxbury in that area. The real border is Hammond Street. The people whom typically disassociate that part of the South End from Roxbury is all the real estate agents trying to keep the housing projects and empty lots in that particular area from scaring their customers and the secessionists. The secessionists being the crazy identity politics fueled (reverse racism) crowd that wanted Roxbury along with most of the South End (which wasn't terribly interested in this idea) to break away from Boston into a new city called Mandela.
Before all the housing projects and I695 trashed the border area (West of Mass Ave to the real border at Hammond Street and beyond to Madison Square in Roxbury) it was pretty much Boston's Harlem. The best Jazz and Blues clubs used to be in that neighborhood along with excellent southern cuisine. Think of the back of Beacon Hill when it was the center of the African American Community, crossed with Harlem's music scene, and New Orlean's restaurants.
Bryon Rushing has talked about this subject at length many times. It's an important area historically for Boston's African American community. Even though it's lost almost everything in the last half century, because of the historic importance and the animosity between Roxbury Residents and the perception of Boston proper, the usually meaningless border becomes a contentious issue.
What?
By eekanotloggedin
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 7:12pm
What would "reverse racism" be? Is that when the privileged race *doesn't* oppress the others?
I would just call that justice or thoughtfulness when that happens.
Reverse racism is the term
By Haviland
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:22pm
Reverse racism is the term for blacks discriminating against white people, since the great arbiters of political correctness have banned the term "racist" from being applied to any other ethnic group which actively discriminates against another ethnic group. And trust me, as a black man having been well traveled, the whole world is full of bigoted ethnic groups that aren't a lighter shade of pale.
Back to the neighborhood border issue, I don't see how aging militant Blank Panther types putting up posters (some serious shit that would creep the living hell out of anyone today) essentially calling for an armed insurrection against whitey can be viewed in the rose colored light you're presenting here. The secessionist group made it very clear that it was a racist (if you were black and disagreed with them then somehow you weren't really black) jab by blacks against what they saw was a predominantly white city. The name Mandela was very deliberately chosen as this was around the time that the anti-apartheid movement in the US was gaining momentum to pressure the South African government.
Stupid over the top shit like that is why I moved out of that area in the early 80s.
There are better terms for what you're describing
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:51am
Anyone can favor their own kind, or judge people not by the content of their character, but racism is the systemic oppression by a dominant racial group. In order to have Black racism against whites, you'd need somewhere in which the Black folks had a long history of being the privileged group in every sense, and then you'd have regular racism, not reverse. "Reverse racism" doesn't exist.
I guess it would be futile
By Dan Farnkoff
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:05am
to check a regular dictionary here- perhaps the definitions need to be updated to reflect this particular understanding of racism? I guess the third one, from the cultural dictionary, comes the closest to what you describe. It's tough to have a debate about the meaning of a word that can't be solved by a dictionary.
Privilege + Power
By anon-a-rama
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:45am
Racism = privilege + power used to advantage
Our Fine Harvard Professor had wealth and status privileges, but Mr. Cop had state power behind his decision to arrest a guy for telling him to GTFU of his home.
On the other hand, there are incidents of black cops beating up more recent Asian immigrants - that's privilege + power = racism.
Statements and actions by people who are siding and identifying with the privilege and power they lack themselves are still manifestations of racism, because they support the use of that privilege and power to oppress. See also, Ann Coulter (sexism) and Uncle Tom.
Exactly
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:08pm
Statements and actions by people who are siding and identifying with the privilege and power they lack themselves are still manifestations of racism, because they support the use of that privilege and power to oppress. See also, Ann Coulter (sexism) and Uncle Tom.
Precisely! People can and do perpetuate oppression of groups to which they belong.
Aw geez
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:31pm
Now you made me link to Uncle Ruckus to prove your point.
That's not racism that's
By Haviland
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:09pm
That's not racism that's simple abuse of power.
rac·ism
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Not to be pedantic
By Kaz
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 6:48pm
But Uncle Tom actually supported his oppressor because he felt a "Christian love" for him that he distinguished separately from the abuse he received at the hands of Legree. Love the sinner, not the sin, basically. He wasn't identifying with his captor or betraying his race. He was only passively perpetuating the problem of slavery because he wanted the slavery to stop (he helped others escape and died rather than tell where they went), but through defining himself as "not an object" and not by denigrating another human, even if they were his captor. The portrayal of Uncle Tom as a race betrayer came much later as a straw man for militant blacks to rally against.
In fact, to bring it up in the same post as Henry Gates, Jr. (albeit unrelatedly) is somewhat ironic, since Gates actually co-wrote an annotated version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" to restore the original intent of the book where he is actually a hero, and not the bastardized definition of "Uncle Tom" that you're talking about here.
Yeah, you're right
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 8:15pm
We'll just stick to using Bill Cosby as an example of a person who perpetuates racism against his own race then!
Or
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:15pm
instead of being pedantic, we could agree to use the term to discuss the concept that has most been studied under this term by sociologists and psychologists and other experts in human behavior.
It's fine to disagree with anyone, including (and especially!?) experts, but I think we all sound uninformed and uneducated when we say that we know that the authorities' conception of this term is X, but I'm going to flat-out dismiss all of their work because I really think it should just be Y. It's kind of like that "have to know the rules before you can break them" thing we were all taught about things such as sentence fragments and nonstandard grammar. Dig?
(You keep telling me that them newfangled physical scientists think mass is how much matter is contained in something, but the dictionary says it's a Catholic religious observance, and I really prefer chant and organs and kneeling to grams and kilograms and atoms, so I'm just going to insist that you cease that crazy scientific noise since that word can also mean what I think it does and the dictionary even backs me up. (Now who's being pedantic? ;-)... ))
Am I missing something?
By Pete Nice
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:36pm
Isn't reverse racism or discrimination when the minority group discriminates against the majority group (which can happen)?
Like if a black cab driver refused to pick up white people for the simple fact that he thought white people were evil. That would be reverse racism in my opinion because the minority group is discriminating against the majority group.
That Boston Latin case where the white student sued and won would be a case of reverse racism wouldn't it?
How About This?
By Suldog
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:57pm
What if we just stop worrying about dictionary definitions and call people we disagree with 'assholes'? Wouldn't that make life simpler and allow us to not be sidetracked so often?
(If it will help, feel free to begin with me.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Shut up, asshole
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 8:14pm
:o)
Thank You
By Suldog
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 8:40am
I knew I could count on you, asshole :-)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
No.
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 5:27pm
Discrimination, yes. That's a legal construct of someone treating someone differently because of their membership in a protected class or something closely related.
But it wouldn't be any form of racism, since it's not an example of a privileged race of people benefiting from membership in said race. Racism is the system in which there's a default race that most things are kind of designed around, and it's easier to get and stay ahead if you're part of that race. Not all products/examples of racism have to involve discrimination.
Reverse Racism
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:24am
The main meaning and usefulness of that term is something like the meaning of "but I have black friends" and "I am not a racist".
Sort of like a beta emitter, instead of a gamma or alpha emitter. All make effective tracers.
As Haviland is black himself
By Dan Farnkoff
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 6:01am
I'm not sure how this applies here.
Wait, you just made her point
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:52am
Black people can and do perpetuate racism against Black folks. Bill Cosby is particularly adept at this.
("But he's Black; he can't be racist!")
We have an area which is
By Haviland
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:15am
We have an area which is predominately black where the residents have an issue with 'gentrification' which is really a polite way of saying "white people moving into our neighborhood". If the situation was reversed everyone would be crying racism.
When the whole secessionist movement was at its peak, I never understood how its proponents missed the irony of wanting to self segregate themselves into an enclave named after a political leader, whom at the time was, fighting against segregation into enclaves.
And by the tone of some posters here I guess all black people have to think alike or they are race traitors or something. This identity politics bullshit is really tired and with all the lawyering, gymnastics ,and semantics going on, the whole world (meaning every race and ethnicity) would be better off to admit personal favoritism and get over it. The whole guilt and blame game with rules for one group but not another does nothing but further animosity, resentment, entitlement, and fear.
Appreciate your observations - maybe misunderstanding
By Marc
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 4:51pm
I appreciate your sharing the first-hand observations of that time in that neighborhood.
You know, despite how it came across, maybe eeka and others are not actually disagreeing with you. They just don't like the term "reverse racism" for philosophical reasons and are talking about that instead. I don't think they actually objected to your observations.
I could be wrong about that though.
(Down-thread here, she said that she was NOT calling you a racist, or protesting your observation of reverse racism. She was just "made the point that racism is a system".)
Wow
By Marc
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:00am
Eeka, Swirley, WTF? Seriously.
Do I understand correctly that you are calling Haviland a racist? Just for pointing out examples of real-life black-on-white racism, that he cited as events which personally drove him to leave that neighborhood during an earlier period in his own life?
That's hilarious! Almost beyond ridicule. You're "conspiring to rob him of his authentic voice"! Or whatever the phrase is.
To regular folks, any time a person of any race whatsoever expresses active hatred of another race, that's clear-cut racism.
When latinos, african-americans, asians, indians, and other non-white groups display overt, violent racial animosity towards one other, what exactly do you call it? Don't tell me it's something like "misdirected anger at generations of mutual oppressions at the hands of the dominant culture, displaced against equally oppressed groups"? ;)
What. The. Fuck.
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:44am
I have not anywhere in this thread called anyone a racist, and I do not intend to do so. Thank you for your time.
My mistake, then
By Marc
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:28pm
My mistake, then? I saw this:
Haviland ("Um, Mass Ave has never been")
SwiryGrrl ("Reverse Racism")
Dan Farnkoff ("As Haviland is black himself")
eeka ("Wait, you just made her point")
...and I thought your point was that even though Haviland is black, the opinion he expressed still makes him racist against black people.
My apologies for not understanding your point. What was it?
Uh, no
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:06pm
I made the point that racISM is a system, and we all perpetuate it at times, often unconsciously, and usually unintentionally. It can be perpetuated by people of any race. That's all I said. I didn't call anyone "a racIST," and I don't think blaming racism on individuals is usually constructive (there are a few notably exceptional individuals).
Another point
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:02am
"reverse" implies a default direction, e.g. white on black. That doesn't make any logical sense - there is no default direction of racism.
As was mentioned elsewhere, power and privilege used to categorically debase people of another race is all it takes - African American police officers systematically beating down Hmong immigrants is also racism, as was the way certain individuals in the BPS used their office and authority to actively punish poorer white students in the 1980s. When power, privilege and authority are absent and somebody is just being a bigoted prig, that is discrimination.
What were the parking rules
By anon
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 7:59pm
What were the parking rules before? Were they Roxbury permit only, or unrestricted?
Prior to 3-4 years ago most
By Kyle
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:15pm
Prior to 3-4 years ago most of the streets between Northampton and Melnea Cass (aka Lower Roxbury) didn't have resident parking signs. The few spots that did (i.e. in front of Good Eats) had (still have?) Roxbury signs.
There is no such thing as "reverse racism."
There were no parking
By Haviland
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:26pm
There were no parking restrictions in that area and for most of Columbus Avenue heading into the South End as well. A big complaint from residents had been that a lot of students from NU use their streets for free parking. When Ruggles opened, and similarly to what persisted until the signs went up on Columbus, people would drive in and park in the neighborhood really early in the morning for free parking while they went into work in Back Bay or Downtown during the day. It was a raw deal for residents to not be able to park in their neighborhoods and local businesses could never get short term parking out front hurting their bottom line.
As somone without a
By J
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:53pm
As somone without a car....
What exactly does that sign mean? Can a non-resident park as long as they want after 6pm?
The sign means that during
By Haviland
Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:28pm
The sign means that during the day between those posted hours anyone can park there for 2 hours before ticketed. Residents with permits can park at any time for any duration without being ticketed.
But the sign says nothing
By J
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 8:20pm
But the sign says nothing about non-residents and parking after 6pm or weekend.
What the sign says to me is that it's 2 hour parking during the day, expect residents which can park as long as they want.
So if a non-resident wants to park there on a Sunday, they can't? That doesn't make sense to me, because a meter with a similar sign means its free during off hours, not banned.
Is there any reason
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:29am
... why they can't put up "parking is okay here for these stickers: (neighborhood 1), (neighborhood 2)" signs? Why does it have to be restricted to a single area if it is in a boundary zone?
Because that would make too much sense!
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:54am
Duh!
(Yet they're fine with having "Dorchester" be all one resident permit so people from Lower Mills can park in Savin Hill to take the T, and "Allston-Brighton" being all one area so people from Cleveland Circle can park near the Allston bars. But no, you can't park a few streets over to actually use the resident permit for what it's for. That's not allowed.)
They also want some people to come in though too.
By Pete Nice
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 8:21am
Neighborhoods don't want only residents to be able to park, and since it is a public street, it is only fair to let some people come in and be able to park. Some of these people do have friends that want to come in and visit as well, and may have elderly or HP family members that need to drive in and park.
Plus there are many areas who want parking spaces for people to come in and do buisness, shop, etc.
edit: oh but are you talking about the boundry areas?
Impossible to go to some of the resident areas though
By eeka
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:03pm
Part of my job is visiting families at home, and we pretty much have to drive in order to fit all of the visits and our other work into a work week that doesn't go waaaay over 40 hours. There are places such as Sydney St area near JFK where it's resident parking for several blocks in each direction with like one visitor spot at the corner of every block. The few visitor spots are always occupied, usually by someone with a resident sticker. Same thing happens in parts of Southie. Let me tell you, it's tons of fun to briskly jog several blocks carrying a bunch of equipment and then end up at the appointment late anyway.
Many Different Definitions
By anon
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:14pm
There are many different ways neighborhood boundaries are defined: by resident parking districts, zip codes, zoning code districts, census areas, police districts, etc. etc. The list goes on and on and the boundaries certainly don't often match up. Resident parking is just one way of defining neighborhood boundaries.
Lower Roxbury, not the South End
By anon
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:41pm
This is an error by the city, which should respect the historic and present Massachusetts Avenue dividing line between Lower Roxbury and the South End. Failing to do so honors neither neighborhood, each of which possesses a distinct and important past and a present that pays respect to the city's neighborhoods by properly, clearly and consistently identifying them as such. I love the South End, but I live in Lower Roxbury (on the Roxbury side of Mass. Ave.). The BRA and others should respect and reflect this.