4 ms·

> foreign language people and gangs took over this part of Nashville This is clearly grouping "foreign language people" and "gangs" together. The phrase "took

> foreign language people and gangs took over this part of Nashville This is clearly grouping "foreign language people" and "gangs" together. The phrase "took over" has negative connotations. It's pretty clearly saying that it is bad that people who speak foreign came into the area, not just neutrally "describing [a] demographic shift of the mall "

yostrovs 7y ago
What if the two events did actually happen and that these two events were critical in the neighborhood's development?
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Entirely my point. One of the two local malls in my area suffered a similar decline and demographic shift for a time. The half not anchored by a Target and a department store became vacant save for a smattering of small local stores, many owned by enterprising foreigners. The empty areas became frequent copping spots, and suffered a few drug related shootings and other incidents through the years before the City and the owners cleaned up and started getting more big-ticket tenants back into the mall. Nowadays the mall has sports facilities, a maker space, That foreigners and "gansters" are involved the decline of an area doesn't make pointing out their coming in with the decline of the mall bigoted. Ascribing intent to writing such as this says as much about the critic as it does the writer.
mieseratte 7y ago
> The phrase "took over" has negative connotations. If you want it to, sure, it absolutely can! > It's pretty clearly saying that it is bad that people who speak foreign came into the area, not just neutrally "describing [a] demographic shift of the mall " No, it really isn't clearly saying what you're ascribing. That's your reading into it what you want to see. No one cries racism when an article about affluent whites taking over a neighborhood. This is just a different shift.
- chapium 7y ago
  I grew up near Nashville and this certainly is a negative connotation.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    Sure, you can read into it a negative connotation but that isn't enough to ascribe racist intent.
    - chapium 7y ago
      Dead wrong. Its not the same as overt racism, but it is indeed racist to make sweeping statements about the decline of "x" after such and such group showed up. In this case its more like xenophobia since being a foreigner or outsider to the community is not a race.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  >No one cries racism when an article about affluent whites taking over a neighborhood. People absolutely do, even when words as strong as "took over" aren't used. Whenever race is mentioned wrt gentrification, it's one of the top comments| For example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819695 > With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we as a society decided that racial segregation was bad, and trying to demonize people people buying homes in a certain area due to their race was wrong ... > Not okay to tell some one he ought not live somewhere because of his race. This is true regardless of what that race may be.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    Well I was clearly wrong to claim "no one," but that has no bearing on whether the user-submitted article referenced was written with actual racial animus as asserted, or was just ill-phrased observation.
- bregma 7y ago
  > No one cries racism when an article about affluent whites taking over a neighborhood. I read plenty about the racism involved with decades of "urban renewal" and "redevelopment" and "gentrification". You might not hear a lot among you white straight male friends at the golf club about things like Rochester's Inner Loop getting demolished to restore the neighbourhood after it was taken over decades ago, but that's not because people weren't (and still aren't) crying racism. It's because you're insulated from what goes on outside the gates of your community.

yostrovs 7y ago

What if the two events did actually happen and that these two events were critical in the neighborhood's development?

mieseratte 7y ago
Entirely my point. One of the two local malls in my area suffered a similar decline and demographic shift for a time. The half not anchored by a Target and a department store became vacant save for a smattering of small local stores, many owned by enterprising foreigners. The empty areas became frequent copping spots, and suffered a few drug related shootings and other incidents through the years before the City and the owners cleaned up and started getting more big-ticket tenants back into the mall. Nowadays the mall has sports facilities, a maker space, That foreigners and "gansters" are involved the decline of an area doesn't make pointing out their coming in with the decline of the mall bigoted. Ascribing intent to writing such as this says as much about the critic as it does the writer.

mieseratte 7y ago

> The phrase "took over" has negative connotations. If you want it to, sure, it absolutely can! > It's pretty clearly saying that it is bad that people who speak foreign came into the area, not just neutrally "describing [a] demographic shift of the mall " No, it really isn't clearly saying what you're ascribing. That's your reading into it what you want to see. No one cries racism when an article about affluent whites taking over a neighborhood. This is just a different shift.

chapium 7y ago
I grew up near Nashville and this certainly is a negative connotation.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Sure, you can read into it a negative connotation but that isn't enough to ascribe racist intent.
  - chapium 7y ago
    Dead wrong. Its not the same as overt racism, but it is indeed racist to make sweeping statements about the decline of "x" after such and such group showed up. In this case its more like xenophobia since being a foreigner or outsider to the community is not a race.
helen___keller 7y ago
>No one cries racism when an article about affluent whites taking over a neighborhood. People absolutely do, even when words as strong as "took over" aren't used. Whenever race is mentioned wrt gentrification, it's one of the top comments| For example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819695 > With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we as a society decided that racial segregation was bad, and trying to demonize people people buying homes in a certain area due to their race was wrong ... > Not okay to tell some one he ought not live somewhere because of his race. This is true regardless of what that race may be.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Well I was clearly wrong to claim "no one," but that has no bearing on whether the user-submitted article referenced was written with actual racial animus as asserted, or was just ill-phrased observation.
bregma 7y ago
> No one cries racism when an article about affluent whites taking over a neighborhood. I read plenty about the racism involved with decades of "urban renewal" and "redevelopment" and "gentrification". You might not hear a lot among you white straight male friends at the golf club about things like Rochester's Inner Loop getting demolished to restore the neighbourhood after it was taken over decades ago, but that's not because people weren't (and still aren't) crying racism. It's because you're insulated from what goes on outside the gates of your community.