Monday, December 8, 2008
Politics "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People."
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:53 AM
In his retirement, George W. Bush is going to live in a community that didn't allow nonwhites (except for domestic servants, of course!) until 2000:
Until 2000, the neighborhood association's covenant said only white people were allowed to live there, though an exception was made for servants.Enacted in 1956, part of the original document reads: "Said property shall be used and occupied by white persons except those shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of different race or nationality in the employ of a tenant."
Share via
1
That's not entirely accurate.
Those clauses were invalid well before 2000, though it took the association many years to actually remove it from the covenant.
Those clauses were invalid well before 2000, though it took the association many years to actually remove it from the covenant.
3
Exactly. Thousands upon thousands of these covenants still exist in writing, though they have all been invalid for decades. I'll betcha there's a few still on the books in Seattle.
5
Paul,
I understand your contempt for Bush et al. But, one can find restrictive covenants in many title deeds (yours?) right here in King County. I used to work in the title insurance industry and it was extraordinary how many original deeds had restrictions against "Chinamen" (yes, that was the nomenclature). Many deeds have their dirt. It's not surprising at all that the Bushes have one on their origanl document.
I understand your contempt for Bush et al. But, one can find restrictive covenants in many title deeds (yours?) right here in King County. I used to work in the title insurance industry and it was extraordinary how many original deeds had restrictions against "Chinamen" (yes, that was the nomenclature). Many deeds have their dirt. It's not surprising at all that the Bushes have one on their origanl document.
6
These haven't been legally enforceable since 1968. In fact there are homeowners associations in Seattle that still have restrictive covenants, and thousands and thousands of properties in Seattle have racially restrictive language written into their deeds.
See the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project's Segregated Seattle section for more on this.
See the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project's Segregated Seattle section for more on this.
7
What is interesting is that racially restrictive convenants were invalidated by the Supreme Court in '48. But many of Seattle's covenants are difficult if not impossible to alter. A little bit different from a community going out of its way to create an ineffective covenant like this Dallas community did.
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/coven…
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/coven…
9
Though it looks like Gregiore signed a law that makes it easier for us to eliminate racial covenants.
10
Everyone knows that black people always drastically improve any neighborhood they move into, which is why everyone wants lots of blacks to live nearby... neighborhoods are exponentially improved when more blacks move in... everyone knows this.
11
My best part was the lady in the story walking her dog worried that her neighborhood will be a target. Gee, wonder why they would be a target...fucking racist bitch!!
15
"My best part was the lady in the story walking her dog worried that her neighborhood will be a target. Gee, wonder why they would be a target...fucking racist bitch!!"
========
Then you are a fucking idiot douche who cannot read. The woman is scared that her neighborhood will be a target for terrorists because of the failure that is G.W. Bush. She has every good reason to feel that way and "racism" has nothing to do with it. Typical Seattle liberal douche commenting about something you obviously do not understand.
========
Then you are a fucking idiot douche who cannot read. The woman is scared that her neighborhood will be a target for terrorists because of the failure that is G.W. Bush. She has every good reason to feel that way and "racism" has nothing to do with it. Typical Seattle liberal douche commenting about something you obviously do not understand.
16
@11,
Uh, what? She's worried that the neighborhood will be a target because Bush will be living there, not because she's afraid of black people.
@13,
Dude, #5 is clearly quoting a restrictive covenant that has outdated terminology and not using that term him/herself.
Uh, what? She's worried that the neighborhood will be a target because Bush will be living there, not because she's afraid of black people.
@13,
Dude, #5 is clearly quoting a restrictive covenant that has outdated terminology and not using that term him/herself.
17
As Bush leaves the White House, his haters are grabbing at every little morsel they can to vindicate their rage - but the pickins are getting mighty slim.
18
Well, think about it Paul. If YOU were an African-American, would you WANT shrub moving in next door?
I mean, talk about KILLING your property value...
I mean, talk about KILLING your property value...
20
Everyone in Seattle who lives in a neighborhood that has ever had these now-overturned covenants from decades ago on the books is an evil racist, just like Bush! Oh wait, that's just about all of you. See how that game works?
21
Bush offends me in a hundred different ways, on almost a daily basis... but this isn't one of them.
There are dozens of neighborhoods in Seattle that still have such covenants on the books. Like the one in Texas, they have been invalid for more than a half century, and they've just never removed it. Although it is offensive, most neighborhoods have not bothered to raise the money necessary and gathered the required signatures to revise the covenants. It would take time, money, and effort to remove the covenants, but it would have no legal effect since the covenants are unenforceable anyway.
There are dozens of neighborhoods in Seattle that still have such covenants on the books. Like the one in Texas, they have been invalid for more than a half century, and they've just never removed it. Although it is offensive, most neighborhoods have not bothered to raise the money necessary and gathered the required signatures to revise the covenants. It would take time, money, and effort to remove the covenants, but it would have no legal effect since the covenants are unenforceable anyway.
25
I'm not loving the bizarre racial terminology in these -- "Ethiopian", "Malay", "Asiatic", "Mongolian", "Semitic", "any Hebrew"....
Interesting that only Licton Springs saw fit to mention "Hindu", and only Sheridan Heights "Hawaiian".
When we moved to a new house in 1968 a woman came to the door to welcome us, and ask us to sign an agreement that we would never sell to a Jew. My mother told her to get the fuck off the property.
Interesting that only Licton Springs saw fit to mention "Hindu", and only Sheridan Heights "Hawaiian".
When we moved to a new house in 1968 a woman came to the door to welcome us, and ask us to sign an agreement that we would never sell to a Jew. My mother told her to get the fuck off the property.
26
the best part of that "article" (wtf is 'Raw Story'?) is the mention of Ross Perot, who apparently is still alive
28
I checked the link #14 posted, and here's what some deeds in my area (Olympic Hills) say:
Now, given that these clauses have been unenforceable in Washington since 1948 and outright banned since 1968, what do you think is the best thing to do about them? As I see it, there are three possibilities.
1) Leave them as they are.
2) Remove them.
3) Amend the deed or covenant with a clause that specifically negates the racial restrictions.
To me, 3 seems like the best option (assuming it's legally feasible). 2 is apparently very difficult to do because of legal issues, plus it seems like just sweeping the ugly past under the rug. As for 1, while racial restrictions are still unenforceable, it's offensive to leave them unchallenged on the deed.
Said lot or lots shall not be sold, conveyed, or rented nor leased, in whole or in part, to any person not of the White race; nor shall any person not of the White race be permitted to occupy any portion of said lot or lots or of any building thereon, except as domestic servant actually employed by a White occupant of such building.
Now, given that these clauses have been unenforceable in Washington since 1948 and outright banned since 1968, what do you think is the best thing to do about them? As I see it, there are three possibilities.
1) Leave them as they are.
2) Remove them.
3) Amend the deed or covenant with a clause that specifically negates the racial restrictions.
To me, 3 seems like the best option (assuming it's legally feasible). 2 is apparently very difficult to do because of legal issues, plus it seems like just sweeping the ugly past under the rug. As for 1, while racial restrictions are still unenforceable, it's offensive to leave them unchallenged on the deed.
29
@25: my dad tells me about towns in the Chicago area that wouldn't let Jews in while he was growing up. About the same time as that, I'm guessing.
30
"my dad tells me about towns in the Chicago area that wouldn't let Jews in"
======
I live in an apartment complex full of Israeli Jews and they are all arrogant and talk incredibly loudly and are generally a bunch of huge assholes.
They treat anyone who is not an Israeli Jew like shit.
WGA, CA.
======
I live in an apartment complex full of Israeli Jews and they are all arrogant and talk incredibly loudly and are generally a bunch of huge assholes.
They treat anyone who is not an Israeli Jew like shit.
WGA, CA.
31
The main thing is that we now know that the whole ranch thing was Yet Another Lie And Fake Out.
GWB is being who he really is.
A racist white guy from the upper class.
GWB is being who he really is.
A racist white guy from the upper class.
34
That poor child looks like the rest of the country looks, frightened of what he might do before he leaves.
38
http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/sundowntowns…
Sundown Towns: book, searchable database, etc.
Some Dallas neighborhoods and suburbs have done wacky things to preserve de facto segregation and I'm sure some still do, but (as has already been pointed out) Preston Hollow deed covenants aren't proof by themselves.
Sundown Towns: book, searchable database, etc.
Some Dallas neighborhoods and suburbs have done wacky things to preserve de facto segregation and I'm sure some still do, but (as has already been pointed out) Preston Hollow deed covenants aren't proof by themselves.
39
Why on earth would they want to keep black people out? Look at all the neighborhoods in Detroit and lots of other places that were vastly improved when lots of blacks moved in... if "vastly improved" is read as a euphemism for "destroyed". I just' can't imagine why these evil racists would do what they do....
43
http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst…
Go to the "Victims and Offenders" document for the year 2005, and go to Table 42... compare the numbers under the category of "Type of crime and race of victim" for "Rape/sexual assault"...
Go to the "Victims and Offenders" document for the year 2005, and go to Table 42... compare the numbers under the category of "Type of crime and race of victim" for "Rape/sexual assault"...
44
Hell, our condo HOA declarations state that women can't vote on issues before the board. And this was written in 1979. Here it is, 2008, and that clause is still there and our condo board is entirely female.
It is left as is because updating condo declarations would have to be brought up to date with dozens of other legally required updates. Those other updates would require decisions and voting by 2/3rd of the ownership. Just bringing it up results in endless bickering and hard feelings between neighbors, so why do it?
It is left as is because updating condo declarations would have to be brought up to date with dozens of other legally required updates. Those other updates would require decisions and voting by 2/3rd of the ownership. Just bringing it up results in endless bickering and hard feelings between neighbors, so why do it?
46
@19,
Whatever. I guess "dude" should have tipped me off, but it's been at least ten years since I've seen the movie. Sue me.
Whatever. I guess "dude" should have tipped me off, but it's been at least ten years since I've seen the movie. Sue me.
47
@30 that's because they're Israeli, not because they're Jewish. Israeli custom is to do whatever the fuck they want - and screw you if you don't like it you "anti-Semitic" fuck.
Jews are nice.
Get a clue.
Jews are nice.
Get a clue.
48
re: "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People."
Maybe now.
But wait til he wants their votes so he can get married.
They'll become his new Mandingo best friends.
And he'll obsess about them day and night.
(when he's not obsessing over Mormons, that is)
Maybe now.
But wait til he wants their votes so he can get married.
They'll become his new Mandingo best friends.
And he'll obsess about them day and night.
(when he's not obsessing over Mormons, that is)
49
To be fair, since Tiger Woods has no problem belonging to "men only" golf clubs without much guilt so why should I feel bad that he was once excluded from certain upscale neighborhoods? Futhmore then "white only" thing also meant no Asians, Hispanics, Indians, Jews, etc. Most upscale, and even midscale neighborhoods would not allow unmarried women to buy or rent (although bachelors could). To make is sound like these rules were aimed only and even mostly at black people is by itself racist- you are saying descrimination again blacks is more offeneded then the 2 dozen other groups who were also not allowed. From what I've heard it sounds like many African Americans would have no problem with a "no gays allowed" amendment, so these attitudes pervade EVERY community, some of us have moved along though.....
50
I'm sorry, Mary. The black face is the face of the civil rights movement because blacks act as a human shield to those who actually get the rights--the anti-voucher movement doesn't help or hurt blacks, for example; it is a front of the teacher's union. The habit is also for someone who doesn't wish to research the actual history of the civil rights movement to create a flimsy, one-time analogy for their cause by simply saying "black people" when they discuss the civil rights movement. Why has no one cared to compare the gay rights struggle with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1920? Or Japanese internment camps? It's because they don't even know about them. In fact, I would bet that they would be just as offended at that appropriation of their history as blacks.
As far as women are concerned, I would prefer to work with less of them--especially the white ones. I'm totally gay, and I don't want my every non-white glance to be interpreted by them as prelude to harassment or rape. Sorry. Besides, white women benefit disproportionately from affirmative action anyway. Strange how the opponents of it don't slap a white woman's face on that argument.
Gays, like feminists have piggybacked on the civil rights movement. Most gays now want 'normalcy' and most 3rd wave feminists want 'femininity'. What that means is that they want the ease that comes from conforming to the dictates of white identity and that minorities can no longer trust them on issues of 'intersectionality'. You say: "woman is the n--- of the world". I say, "then you sure as hell ought to be treated that way." From what I have seen, 'rights' are limited and identity politics is a zero-sum game. So maybe the blacks should research how much power the Church is willing to give them in exchange for overturning abortion laws and gay marriage. We all know where your solidarity would be.
More...
As far as women are concerned, I would prefer to work with less of them--especially the white ones. I'm totally gay, and I don't want my every non-white glance to be interpreted by them as prelude to harassment or rape. Sorry. Besides, white women benefit disproportionately from affirmative action anyway. Strange how the opponents of it don't slap a white woman's face on that argument.
Gays, like feminists have piggybacked on the civil rights movement. Most gays now want 'normalcy' and most 3rd wave feminists want 'femininity'. What that means is that they want the ease that comes from conforming to the dictates of white identity and that minorities can no longer trust them on issues of 'intersectionality'. You say: "woman is the n--- of the world". I say, "then you sure as hell ought to be treated that way." From what I have seen, 'rights' are limited and identity politics is a zero-sum game. So maybe the blacks should research how much power the Church is willing to give them in exchange for overturning abortion laws and gay marriage. We all know where your solidarity would be.
51
@50
"As far as women are concerned, I would prefer to work with less of them--especially the white ones.
I'm totally gay, and I don't want my every non-white glance to be interpreted by them as prelude to harassment or rape. Sorry. Besides, white women benefit disproportionately from affirmative action anyway."
As far as blacks are concerned, I would prefer to work with less of them--
especially the male ones.
I don't want my every white glace, action, or word to be interpreted by them as a prelude to racism. I don't want to have to listen to how the only reason they are not a CEO is because of racism and have to nod sympathetically, when their incompetence is so painfully obvious to everyone, but them. Sorry, besides black men always say white women benefit disproporiately from affirmative action, yet it is the black student unions at colleges accross the country that have harrassed the hell out of anyone who criticizes it. If Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan are for someonething (they are all strongly in favor of affirmative action) you can bet your ass they are not doing it for us white women.
"As far as women are concerned, I would prefer to work with less of them--especially the white ones.
I'm totally gay, and I don't want my every non-white glance to be interpreted by them as prelude to harassment or rape. Sorry. Besides, white women benefit disproportionately from affirmative action anyway."
As far as blacks are concerned, I would prefer to work with less of them--
especially the male ones.
I don't want my every white glace, action, or word to be interpreted by them as a prelude to racism. I don't want to have to listen to how the only reason they are not a CEO is because of racism and have to nod sympathetically, when their incompetence is so painfully obvious to everyone, but them. Sorry, besides black men always say white women benefit disproporiately from affirmative action, yet it is the black student unions at colleges accross the country that have harrassed the hell out of anyone who criticizes it. If Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan are for someonething (they are all strongly in favor of affirmative action) you can bet your ass they are not doing it for us white women.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Seattle's Crappiest Bus Route by Unpaid Intern
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
How Many Ballots Are Left to Count? by Eli Sanders
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
Cyclist Hits Pedestrian by Dan Savage
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
What He Said 2 by Dan Savage
-
The Morning News by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
-
The World Series of Baseball by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (51) RSS