The Washington Post editorial board has drawn a line in the sand against anti-white black solidarity, at least where it really matters: Washington D.C. city council elections.
Anita Bonds’ misguided focus on race
By Editorial Board
D.C. COUNCIL member Anita Bonds (D-At Large) is not the first District official, nor sadly is she likely to be the last, to try to use race to her advantage. But her awkward comments about the role that race will play in the city’s upcoming election and voters wanting their “own” should not go unchallenged.
Ms. Bonds appeared Monday on WAMU-FM’s “Kojo Nnamdi Show” with the five other candidates vying for the citywide seat in the April 23 special election. She was asked about recent comments by a union official endorsing her. The official said there is a strong desire within the black community that the seat be held by an African American.
“Happy to hear that,” was Ms. Bonds’s response. She said, “People want to have their leadership reflect who they are” and longtime residents “fear” being pushed out by the city’s changing demographics. “The majority of the District of Columbia is African American. . . . There is a natural tendency to want your own,” she said.
The horror, the horror. Seriously, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for any politician to say. But, it's not okay with the Washington Post editorial board. This stuff's personal. If they help push blacks out of power in Washington D.C. their lives will be a lot better, so they are going to be as anti-black as they gotta be to get the job done.
Ms. Bonds, The Post’s Tim Craig reported, appears to be trying to rally black voters to her bid by noting that the council, now with seven white and six black members, has never had eight white members.
But, it will soon, at least in the Washington Post editorial board's dreams of cashing in big on their real estate investments.
Ms. Bonds told us she is aghast that anyone would interpret her remarks as a plea to vote for her solely because of her race; she said she was merely expressing appreciation about having received the union endorsement. Her spokesman stressed that the campaign has never used race as a basis to garner votes and that the council member was simply responding to a direct question that should not be taken out of context. ...
But the failure of Ms. Bonds to make clear that a candidate’s skin color should not be the determining factor was disappointing, particularly since the council on which she hopes to continue to serve will have to deal with challenges confronting a city undergoing dramatic demographic change.
Translation from Editorialese: Challenges to include blacks not letting the doorknob hit them on the butt as they leave D.C. for places where the locals don't have their hands on The Megaphone like we do here at the Washington Post.
Posts
10 comments:
But no problem with 97% of blacks voting for Obama cuz he's black.
Steve, please start tagging these posts (on the attempted "deblacking" of DC, NY, maybe Chicago) with a suitable tag - I know there are no words or phrases for what appears to be going on, but I'm sure you can find one or your commenters can come up with something suitably pithy and ironic. A cross between the Reconquista (trouble is there's already another one of those as TX, CA, AZ are reclaimed) and "reversing the great migration".
Even "don't let the doorknob hit you on the butt", while lengthy, would suffice.
I spent a fruitless half-hour a week or so ago trying to find your post on some black guy who'd been removed from his city housing in a gentrifying area (Chicago lakeside?) on the grounds of not looking after his dog properly.
“The majority of the United States is European American. . . . There is a natural tendency to want your own,” she said.
Sounds good to me.
There's a good doc on Netflix Instant called "The Nine Lives of Marion Barry." Very interesting portrait of the ex-Mayor, and pretty frank about the role of race in the town's politics. "I guess all politics really is tribal," I said to my wife after we finished watching it.
" I know there are no words or phrases for what appears to be going on, but "
The African-American community already has a phrase for it: "The Plan"
NYC blacks are bitter about what's happening. I know this from many conversations. Mind you, the blacks I've known who moved out didn't seem unhappy about it themselves. I'm actually thinking about a few going away parties at work now - they seemed glad to move. I think that the motivation is mostly lower rents and house prices "down south".
But the ones who stayed know that their neighborhoods are shrinking and hate that. They do think that there is a plan, though I've never specifically heard them call it "The Plan".
The nationwide fall in black crime over the last two decades has been like a hypothetical situation where hedgehogs lose their quills or skunks lose their spraying apparatus. Once blacks became less scary, they started losing better habitats to whites. Crime was their defense mechanism.
Chicago story:
http://takimag.com/article/life_imitates_arts_criticism/print#axzz2QNryeKpR
Interesting contrast between the chiding tone of the editorial and the WaPo photo of Anita Bond, in which she looks like a kindly aunt joshing with you. I think this is more effective (especially with racially timid white liberals) than the 'white right' approach of portraying blacks in leadership roles as rabidly hostile (even when it's true).
Once blacks became less scary, they started losing better habitats to whites. Crime was their defense mechanism.
Black crime is still sky high. I suspect it's a decrease in the non-criminal 'general' hostile vibe of blacks more than a drop in crime that has helped make up their neighborhoods viable residential options for a growing number of whites. Note however that though this has been an important factor, it's certainly not the only factor in play.
Also, you make it sound as though blacks are being forced out of their neighborhoods. They're not. They're just cashing out. 'Black nationalist' types who prefer near 100% black surrounds must be none too pleased about proceedings, but they and their sympathizers may only account for, respectively, 10% and 50-60% of the black population, which leaves a large number of blacks who see things in economic terms rather than in terms of racially pure neighborhoods.
"Interesting contrast between the chiding tone of the editorial and the WaPo photo of Anita Bond, in which she looks like a kindly aunt joshing with you."
Right, she looks as reasonable as she sounds in the quote that the WaPo editors go so worked up over.
Anita Bonds is wrong that DC is majority black. That is almost certainly untrue or will no longer be true very shortly.
In the 2010 Census the black proportion of DC was counted at 52.2%.
In 2011 the estimates have that at 50.7%.
An estimated drop of 1.5% in one year in the black population.
That likely indicates that sometime in 2012 DC ceased to be a majority black city.
Over the past 10 years the white population has been rising at roughly 0.7 percentage points per year and the black population declining at a little below 1 percentage point per year.
From my observations around town, I believe that both these numbers have actually been accelerating in the last few years.
Whites have shown that they will move into just about any neighborhood if they think the residents there can eventually be encouraged to move out (some adventurous white are even moving into Anacostia).
Whites are currently around 35 to 38% of DC's population.
So the 2020 census should reveal that whites either come close to equaling or are actually more numerous than blacks in DC.
That's when the sh#t will hit the fan.
I also think that as word gets out that DC is a city whites have effectively taken back, even more white "in-flight" will occur. In 30 years we'll probably end up with a city that's close to 60 or 65% white, 20 to 25% black, and 15% hispanic / asian.
I live in DC and the gentrification has been good to my bottom line.
Post a Comment