The history of America’s suburbs and the ways in which they were built is inextricable from our racial constructions of whiteness. From the 1930s to the 1950s, racial segregation was systematically executed through programs such as the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Authority. Neither of these programs would lend money to African-Americans, restrictions that became the basis of redlining in this country—when whites moved to areas predominantly composed of people of color, they too were denied loans. This was just one of many tactics that systemically enforced segregated neighbourhoods and privileged the rights of white people at the expense of people of colour. In the 1960s, when blacks from the south migrated up north to work and live in cities, they began to establish homes in places such as Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. More African-Americans were entering into the middle class, accessing better jobs, education, and healthcare. The result? Many upper and middle class whites moved away from cities and into suburbs, perpetuating racially homogenized communities. In the city of Petaluma, where The Girls is set, according to a 1960 census, whites comprised a staggering 99.2 percent of the population. According to Martha R. Mahoney of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, when suburban developments came about, white people were able to both finance and sell homes to other white people, creating insular neighbourhoods in which wealth and safety were engineered to correspond to racial demographics. This enforcement of whiteness cannot be divorced from how we read about white females’ self-destruction within these neighborhoods that are set up to nurture and perpetuate their presumable racial superiority....If you want to keep your girls off the pole and off the coal, don't let them be idle.
For women of color, any neighbourhood in America is moving and pushing against her personhood. But for white women in the aforementioned texts, their neighborhoods are static and affluent. These neighborhoods do not seek to destroy them and so in turn, they destroy themselves to break from the pattern of privilege society has placed them in.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
The Devil's workshop
SJW history is always more fictional than accurate, but one thing they do get correct is the observation of the self-destructive way that many white suburban girls react to growing up in a safe and secure environment:
11 comments:
For women of color, any neighbourhood in America is moving and pushing against her personhood.
LOL, have you ever tried pushing the "personhood" or any other part of a black woman's mass, for that matter?
PA
Blacks did not just "decide" to move to northern cities. The WASP elite brought them there on purpose in order to break up Catholic urban enclaves.
https://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Cities-Renewal-Ethnic-Cleansing/dp/1587317702
E. Michael Jones has followed the advice of Christopher Wrenn. Looking around, he saw monuments, but monuments to the folly and malice of social engineering and a government that had declared war on large segments of its own people. In his meticulously documented book, he proves that urban renewal had more to do with ethnicity than it ever had to do with design or hygiene or blight. Urban renewal was the last gasp attempt of the WASP ruling class to take control of a country that was slipping out of its grasp for demographic reasons. The largely Catholic ethnics were to be driven out of their neighborhoods into the suburbs, where they were to be “Americanized” according to WASP principles. The neighborhoods they left behind were to be turned over to the sharecroppers from the South or turned into futuristic Bauhaus enclaves for the new government elites. Using political tactics like eminent domain and “integration,” the planners made sure that the ethnic neighborhood got transformed into something more congenial to their dreams of social engineering than the actual communities of people they saw as a threat to their control.
This is the precursor of the elite that is flooding America with Latinos, Africans, and Arabs for the same purpose - ethnic cleansing of whites.
Yes, I've experienced it firsthand, there was lots of drama with these silly rich White bitches in the suburbs. Boredom, affluence, neurotic mothers, beta fathers--a toxic stew.
The key, I realised when I got older, is to keep the White kids busy. Immerse them in academic clubs, lacrosse, charity work, rugby, Catechism class, football, art programs, sailing, church groups, etc.
"In the 1960s, when blacks from the south migrated up north to work and live in cities, they began to establish homes in places such as Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland."
She's only off by about a century. Nice effort though, to remember history was happening before she were born.
"In the city of Petaluma, where The Girls is set, according to a 1960 census, whites comprised a staggering 99.2 percent of the population."
Petaluma is not a suburb. It was, and mostly remains, a rural town in what is a somewhat isolated section of California. The numbers are only "staggering" to those delusional sods that believe a lack of non-whites is proof of socio-political genocide.
Polly Klaas probably would have been happy for a little more boredom and safety.
Raising children is much like any other long-term complex project. Decisions made early on will affect everything else down the line. Knowing what you're doing before you begin is also conducive to success. The first thing is that children need to be trained in the same way a dog needs to be trained. You care enough to train a dog, aren't children valuable enough to be trained?
I remember all the massive shit we caught for training our children. First it was because we did it, then it was because our children made the other children look like the undisciplined and rebellious brats they were. The problem is there is a small window of time for training and if it's missed, the opportunity is gone. "To Train Up A Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl is the best resource I've ever seen on this and it works if done as directed.
A farm is probably the ideal place to raise children. Plenty of room to run and play, plenty of real work to be done, not make-work. The kids get to learn the value of work and accomplishment. The economics lessons are invaluable, the skills that they can learn tend to last a lifetime and they get to make a real contribution to the family. Let's not forget room to learn about and shoot guns.
A little travel in other countries is also appropriate after they're a bit older but I'm not talking about typical vacations. I'm talking about introducing them to the reality that merely by being born where they are they're blessed. People on welfare in the US live like kings. It's hard to conceive until they've seen what real poverty is, first hand.
Children learn by osmosis. Get rid of the TV. My kids mostly grew up without cell phones and social media, but that's the kind of SJW breeding ground to avoid. Along with the television. Large families are better than small families when it comes to raising children. The older ones help with the younger ones. First they learn and then they teach.
Homeschool them. Required reading is John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education." I recommend the Robinson Curriculum for reasons that are obvious once you understand the system that Gatto explains. Homeschooling them is critical so the can be properly grounded at a tender age and given time to grow before being exposed to the lies that the culture will try to brainwash them with.
Game is a must and both the boys and girls need to understand it well.
If just those points were hit, the pole and coal is off the menu for the girls. Period.
I suppose in theory kids could be raised in a suburb, but a homesteader lifestyle is pretty much antithetical to suburban realities. Shooting off the back porch tends to be frowned on. While a flock of guineas are better than a watchdog, they tend to irritate the hell out of the neighbors. Likewise with crowing roosters.
Talked to my brother and his wife recently. They live in a very expensive township with lots of Asian and Some NAM diversity. They're blue pill to the core, upper middle class NeverTrumpers who champion H1B visas (because they are in pharma, and without Indian people biz would fail!, not enough qualified Americans).
Anyway. Their son just started kindergarten in the overloaded public schools. My (((SIL))) is upset because her son is a minority in his class. None of the NAMs or Asian kids want to play with him.
I said to her " this is what you want, though, right? Diversity is our strength." She blinked for a second and said she wanted diversity, she just doesn't want her son to be a minority.
I feel bad for the kid, but I absolute loved seeing the wheels in her head go a-spinning. She will never understand the cogdis of her politics, but hopefully her kids can confront enough joys of diversity to see the light.
More African-Americans were entering into the middle class, accessing better jobs, education, and healthcare. The result? Many upper and middle class whites moved away from cities and into suburbs, perpetuating racially homogenized communities.
That's pretty much a rewrite of history. It's not that black people were moving into white neighborhoods. It's that our idiot judiciary decided to the right thing to do was to have white children spend ninety minutes every day traveling back and forth to dangerous schools in the ghetto. In what world would a parent tolerate that if he had any other options?
Based on her picture the author is in her early 20s. I'm not surprised she has no clue what she's talking about.
@Laguna Beach Fogey: From the link;
Besides Evie’s annoyance with her mother’s constant shuffle of boyfriends and her imminent entry into boarding school, I could not understand her motivation
Kinda says it all doesn't it? And the boarding school? Mom wanted to get what she perceived as 'competition' out of the way. Don't you think if she could have done it all over again Mia Farrow wouldn't have shipped Soon Yee off to one?
second look at Title IX?
part of the (never stated, except at Sailer's) rationale for the growth of women's sports is to keep upper middle class women occupied through HS / College. Smart imo.
It's not just that she's woefully ignorant, she's incoherent:
"when whites moved to areas predominantly composed of people of color, they too were denied loans. This was just one of many tactics that systemically enforced segregated neighbourhoods and privileged the rights of white people at the expense of people of colour."
So white people trying to break the rules were treated the exact same way as black people trying to break the rules, therefore white power and privilege!
FYI: White power is not a function of not mixing with blacks; it's a function of not BEing black.
Duh.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.