Myers Park? This is the NAACP calling... (Clinton, Jackson: credit, hotels)

[urbancharlotte]

Originally Posted by vindaloo

Additionally, if one wants to take the feelings of pride and superiority away, one needs to live in a totalitarinan communists regime.

Agreed, as Americans we have the legal right to be ignorant and racist in our thoughts. It is only the "ACT" of racism that is illegal (hence, the reason for this Myers Park debate).

[SunnyKayak]

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii168/hansmafia15/smileys/icon_rendeer.png (broken link)

[mrdkb]

[quote=vindaloo;12050240]

The NAACP has proven to be racists with numerous problems in financial mismangement. quote]

That's a silly statement

[vindaloo]

Originally Posted by urbancharlotte

Agreed, as Americans we have the legal right to be ignorant and racist in our thoughts. It is only the "ACT" of racism that is illegal (hence, the reason for this Myers Park debate).

The reason for the continuing Myers Park debate is the surprise at the stupidity of someone (NAAPC) for filing a complaint about issues from days before the 1940s. Who cares? People need to get over it and move on!

[vindaloo]

Originally Posted by CharlotteGal

This is very interesting - saying the reason it was posted on the site WAS to keep black people out, despite it being an outdated document. Wish I could find an archive of the site with the offending deed, to see if it did, indeed, look like that.

They did say there wasn't an explanation that it was a historical document. I can imagine clicking onto a neighborhood association's site and seeing that... While I would understand it was a historical document, without wording explaining why it was there, I would wonder about the intent behind posting it, as well.

My mother was a lawyer in Charlotte. When I was a teenager, she would show me deeds that had very specific details concerning race. Some of these deeds went back to the early 1800s. They are history. They are of no significance today. Why can't the NAACP and other boneheads realize this? Whether the topic wording accidently showed up on a deed recently is irrelevant. It does not apply.

[bugguy]

Yeah, but you know as well as I do that if you viewed it, your mind is "tainted".

Originally Posted by vindaloo

My mother was a lawyer in Charlotte. When I was a teenager, she would show me deeds that had very specific details concerning race. Some of these deeds went back to the early 1800s. They are history. They are of no significance today. Why can't the NAACP and other boneheads realize this? Whether the topic wording accidently showed up on a deed recently is irrelevant. It does not apply.

[anifani821]

The politics of grievance and the perpetuation of victimology in the black community . . . We all know that not every black person in America - or in Charlotte, for that matter - espouses that philosophy, but it appears it is awfully prevalent.

And yes, I am sure someone is gonna flame me for saying that but honestly - what is it that white folks born in the last 80 years can finally do to resolve all the anger in the black community over their feeling that whites have not paid enough for slavery? Really? What is it?

Every time some historic relic surfaces, it is like the NAACP is on a witch hunt to prove that YES!! YES!!! See!!! Those white folks are still trying to keep us down on the plantation!!!

Someone publishes a deed that has language attached to it that is clearly null and void. That must mean every person who has bought a home with such a deed is a bigot, racist, and trying to send a message of intimidation to the black community! Really? Does the black community believe that white folks are that focused on making sure they send a message of intimidation to the black community? Do black folks spend all their time figuring out ways to intimidate the white folks? Why would someone (of any race!) think whites spend time and energy even thinking about such things? It is totally counter-intuitive! No black official would have ever been elected in the South (unless through gerrymandered districts) unless white folks had seen that person as the best candidate (regardless of race) and voted for him/her. Yet, it seems that there are some in the black community who are still trying to prove that they are not accepted as full citizens and that white folks are intent on intimidating black folks.

If this were not true . . . such things as making a big issue out of a deed would not get more than a shrug of the shoulders. It is our history! Pretending that society was something different than it was is delusional - and acting insulted in 2009 about the way life was in 1889 is wasted energy.

Further, have you ever noticed how many black leaders (NAACP, certain church leaders, for ex) refer to themselves as the "black community?" Have you ever noticed that whites do not refer to themselves as the "white community?" Why is that? White folks don't even think about themselves as set apart in a "community." We don't see the world as "us against them," but the NAACP evidently does - and takes every opportunity to perpetuate this "white folks are out to get us" philosophy.

Dang. We are soon gonna be a decade into the 21st Century. Pretty sad that there are black leaders out there who are still clinging to pre-Civil Rights anger and spend their energy trying to "prove" that white folks are evil, malicious haters rather than finding ways to heal the anger in their communities.

Beating up white people in the courts of black public opinion may in some perverse way make black folks feel better about themselves but it just leaves white people feeling that it doesn't matter how we live our lives in 2009: the black community is still out to punish us all for the sins of our great great great grandfathers.

That's a pretty hopeless way to feel.

[mrsdennis08]

Maybe someone has delved into this already, but WHY can't the clause be removed NOW???

[anifani821]

Originally Posted by mrsdennis08

Maybe someone has delved into this already, but WHY can't the clause be removed NOW???

You need to go back and read the whole thread. At one point, Lumbollo, I believe, explained the complexities of removing the statement, which was recorded many decades ago.

It is a relic and should be viewed as just that - a relic.

[mrsdennis08]

Originally Posted by anifani821

You need to go back and read the whole thread. At one point, Lumbollo, I believe, explained the complexities of removing the statement, which was recorded many decades ago.

It is a relic and should be viewed as just that - a relic.

Actually, Ani, I've been following the entire thread since it was first posted. I just couldn't remember if a valid explanation had been given as to why the clause couldn't be changed. Evidently I'd missed Lumbollo's response. Thanks for pointing me to his post.