Meta: more questions on off-season-off-topic subjects
So, it seems fairly well established that during the off season, when Michigan related sports content is lacking, posts on different topics (cars, pet peeves, favorite meals, worst meals, etc., etc., etc.) are tolerated and even appropriate sometimes.
The list of banned topics is fairly short: stay away from politics, religion, bewbs, and anything personal about Michigan athletes.
I'm curious about whether or not it is appropriate to talk about race issues. This morning, I saw a link from a college student who attends my church. The link was to a viral post by Colgate student Jenny Lundt, who was commenting on white privilege. (you can easily find this if you wish by googling "jenny lundt." Her initial comments went up about a week ago.)
The topic of race, and white privilege, is important. I think there is a subtext on race and white privilege that is very much part of the world inhabited by athletes. It is a topic that is rarely talked about, although I'm sure it is something every athlete is aware of. I do remember seeing something about race and building bridges in Michigan's locker room several years ago, when Hoke was still coach.
My question is whether or not a topic like this works at mgoblog. It is relevant. It isn't politics or bewbs or religion. We're in the middle of the off season. And yet . . . I wonder if we can have a civilized discussion on this. Or whether it is too fraught with danger. I can see arguments going both for and against this kind of topic.
EDIT: Well, the board has spoken, and common sense prevails. While not technically spelled out as off limits, the board isn't the place to discuss hot button issues that are important societally. Which includes race issues. I can accept that. After all, I come here to read about Michigan sports.
Having said that, I will have to seek out better places for dialogue and discussion. I miss the late night discussions in the dorms. Maybe that doesn't happen any more. But I loved that you could have debate with guys on your floor who felt very passionately, take different positions, and still relate as friends the next day. The problem with some forums is that they are either echo chambers with people who have the same take you do, or echo chambers with trolls seeking to provoke. Honestly, I'm not looking for either of those kind of discussions.
Ignorance is bliss.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1547
"In the Spring of 1960 as a result of a court case, the realtors association of very affluent suburban Grosse Pointe (the association brought together realtors from all the Grosse Pointes--Farms, Woods, etc.), just to the northeast of the city of Detroit, was "exposed." They were shown to have been using some rather "questionable" techniques when determining if a particular homebuyer would qualify to purchase a home in one of the Grosse Pointes. They had a rather "normal" goal of wishing to "preserve property values," by having only people with certain qualifications buy homes. They came up with an "ingenious" system for determining an individual's qualification as a buyer."
"Under the system a realtor would find a potential purchaser for a home. Then a private investigator would be hired to make a report on the person. The report would be given to a committee of three brokers and they would take information from the report and use it to assign points to the buyer. Points would be given for matters such as the "extent to which" the buyer was "Americanized," along with his "general standing." This included references to the "swarthiness of appearance," "friends," "dress," "religion," "education," "use of grammar," and "accent."
Norman C. Thomas writes: "The screening process was not required for persons of Northern European ancestry, e.g., Anglo-Saxons, Germans, French, Scandinavians, etc. Out of a maximum 100 points, Poles had to score 55 to pass, Southern Europeans 65, and Jews 85. Negroes and Orientals were not eligible for consideration, their disqualification being automatic." If a house was sold to a buyer who did not survive with a favorable point total, the realtor would forfeit all sales commissions to the association--that is if they wished to continue to do business as part of the GPBA.
Housing covenants were a thing in Grosse Pointe, taken on in court and well documented for decades, no matter the "all manners of girls" you can anecdotally point to.
i'm telling you the article is largely non-sense and so are others (googles paisan for instance) who actually have first hand knowledge and pre-date your existence on the planet. my own example encompasses dozens of people and families, not just some girls. yet, you are believing an article written by somebody you don't know, written 40+ years after the fact. it fits your emotional narrative which props up your self-image. the challenge to you is to be able to consider alternative, direct evidence that contradicts the anonymous article which casts a wide net with many holes.
was there racism in that city? of course. just like there is in your city today, and in plymouth, and in GR, and everywhere else. could you possibly find some racially restrictive covenant in a deed in that city? i bet you can, as i have read them in property cases concerning other cities and states - they were not unique to your city, or GP, or southfield or detroit, etc.
you like to portray your intellect to others. again i challenge you: have the intellect and the initiative to find out. if you google 'racially restrictive covenants' you will find boatloads of literature and it will come from all over this great country of ours.
Great.
We're talking about Grosse Pointe. There were racially and ethnically restrictive covenants in Grosse Pointe. Saying this does not preclude the fact that they existed elsewhere, too.
But, hey, your anecdotes are cool, too.
eh, Ok.
"humans behind keyboards"
Yes, you are correct. Computer keyboards are not meant for dogs.
No Politics. You fittin to be doggy banned.
