Need The Right "Kind" of Boston Suburb - Can you help? (Cambridge: sales, how much)

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by donewithpretty

I was trying to show that your point was not something you'd want to keep defending, Mike, but I'll leave it at that.

My point is that symbols are inanimate objects as such they're incapable of hate or any other action for that matter. People are the problem. We need to change attitudes. I can't see what's so horrible about saying that.

Let's get back to the original point of this thread though . . .

[donewithpretty]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

People are the problem. We need to change attitudes.

I was trying to change attitudes, but you're proving how hard it is. I can't get white guys to see that the negative associations of a Confederate flag far outweigh the one positive (a TV show from the 1980s). Getting rid of the "inanimate" stuff is much easier, and that sends the message about what's acceptable behavior toward other people.

To the OP: Sorry for the thread intrusion. I tried sitting on my hands, but someone was wrong on the Internet.

[SunnyHoney]

I'll make 2 comments about this Confederate HS team flag/offensive team mascot issue, and then be done with it because not only is it off-topic, but I know it to be futile. (People are going to stand their positions despite what is discussed on this forum. 'Tis the nature of online dialogue)

But this I will say:

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

I agree, but mascots are plenty offensive in pro sports, too. And yet I doubt that every single city with a team that has an offensive name and/or mascot and/or logo would be dubbed an unwelcoming environment (if they were by the majority of people, then they'd change their names/mascots/logos).

(1) I'm glad you agree that the flag is offensive.
(2) No personal offense intended, MisfitBanana, but your comment brings up a point I'd like to make. The position you have represented here is something we refer to in my field as "rhetoric maneuvering". To put it simply, it is correlating a legitimately resolvable issue with one that, due to its scale, scope, or some other incomparable parameter, is for all intents and purposes unresolvable. This comparison is done for the sake of not having to address the smaller, simpler, resolvable issue. For example "Why have a neighborhood food drive; it's not like we can end world hunger!" As absurd and cruel as it would be not to feed a small group of hungry children based on the impossibility of ending world hunger, it is as absurd to not address individual acts of racial offense just because addressing it won't end racism completely, or in this case, pro-team racial offenses. (Note, I did not call the issue an act of racism, because there is a difference between "racial offenses" and "racism".) The truth though, particularly with regards to civil issues, is that incremental change DOES have an effect on the broader change. So yes, pro teams are guilty of the same racial offenses, and no, that doesn't usually result in the majority of people feeling that the environment is unwelcoming, (it's debatable, though, whether that would be enough to make them change), BUT those mascots do offend people. It's made new stories because it offends people. Economically, those teams have deemed that it has not offended enough people to warrant the tangible and intangible costs of changing. Pro teams need to weigh the value proposition of changing an entire brand of a large corporate entity against offending what they deem a quantitatively insignificant number of people. This puts their situation on a different scale than a HS football team that does not have to weigh that value proposition. So my question to you would be "What does the racial insensitive of a pro-team have to do with Walpole?" That would be for Walpole to decide. They could use the position you expressed and say that the pro-teams set the standard, and then hang out under that standard, never surpassing it. Or Walpole can chose to be better than those teams, better than their own history, and better than the current standard. Because civic progress, evolution, and growth happens when first individuals, then communities, DECIDE and then ACT on the decision to be better than the standard.

Originally Posted by Parsec

I feel so bad for admitting this, but when I saw 495neighbor say 'AA friends' I thought she was referring to Alcoholics Anonymous. Then I was thinking she's crazy, I don't know any AA people in Natick!

Hilarious! So what are you trying to say??? What, you think all Black people are alcoholics?...just kidding! Just thought I'd poke fun at the little bit of racial tension that might have seeped into this thread. Kidding, folks! It's actually been very benign compared to some other threads I've seen, and I appreciate you all for that!

Originally Posted by Parsec

Natick used to be called the Natick Redmen, but after the whole controversy 5-10 years ago with that term being offensive to Native Americans, we changed our name to the Natick Red & Blue. No one liked that name, so we changed it yet again to the Natick Red Hawks. All within 5-6 years of each other!

Thanks Parsec! This actually punctuates my point: Natick decided to be better, acted on it, and now the standard is set higher...progress.

Having said all this, I knew about the Walpole flag, had done some research into it. And it seems that despite the school's history of it's use, the school does NOT support it's use any longer, is actually against it, and is unofficially in contention with a neighbor who insists on flying it on his property from a vantage point that is visible from the football field. At least that makes it less of a "town's racial issue" and instead, a one-insensitive person issue.

Okay, I'm done with it if y'all are.

[SunnyHoney]

Originally Posted by donewithpretty

I was trying to change attitudes, but you're proving how hard it is. I can't get white guys to see that the negative associations of a Confederate flag far outweigh the one positive (a TV show from the 1980s). Getting rid of the "inanimate" stuff is much easier, and that sends the message about what's acceptable behavior toward other people.

To the OP: Sorry for the thread intrusion. I tried sitting on my hands, but someone was wrong on the Internet.

No worries, donewithpretty! Actually, I commend your effort!

I'm in the business of changing attitudes, literally. You articulated it so very well, but don't sweat it that you won't change them all...I never do.

[SunnyHoney]

Originally Posted by Parsec

Gee, thanks for making me second guess my move to Sudbury, lol.

Oops!

Originally Posted by Parsec

EDIT: I was just thinking about what you said about race. In my 5 years here, I've only seen 1 AA family in my neighborhood (out of 400 homes). There were none in my daughter's class in either kindergarten or 1st grade. In fact, she was the only non-White in kindergarten and there was 1 other Asian girl in her 1st grade class. People were definitely friendly with us despite being a minority, so I don't think it matters what race you are. It just depends on whether you are comfortable with this or not.

Sounds like your daughter was not yet school-aged when you lived in Natick, right? I'm just wondering if you noticed any racial diversity in any of Natick's elementaries, but I'm sure I can find the stats online.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by donewithpretty

Getting rid of the "inanimate" stuff is much easier, and that sends the message about what's acceptable behavior toward other people.

To the OP: Sorry for the thread intrusion. I tried sitting on my hands, but someone was wrong on the Internet.

I like your cartoon and it could definitely describe either of us right now.

Getting rid of symbols is not going to change anything. If you take away someone's symbol of hatred and they are accustomed to hating, they'll just find something new to rally behind. As they say . . . nothing good is every easy and nothing easy is ever good.

The problem I have is here are these people using a symbol with negative connotations to do something positive and therefore changing attitudes around the symbol. They weren't using it do discriminate or even to exclude anyone. Nothing takes away the power of a symbol better than changing it's meaning. Hiding it in a closet somewhere is far less effective. Are you going to have to break a few eggs to make that omelette? Absolutely some people will be offended by its use, but the end benefits are far greater because you've removed the symbol's negative meaning.

I absolutely agree that the flag is offensive but taking it away instead of turning it into something else really accomplishes little.

Originally Posted by SunnyHoney

Thanks Parsec! This actually punctuates my point: Natick decided to be better, acted on it, and now the standard is set higher...progress.

Having said all this, I knew about the Walpole flag, had done some research into it. And it seems that despite the school's history of it's use, the school does NOT support it's use any longer, is actually against it, and is unofficially in contention with a neighbor who insists on flying it on his property from a vantage point that is visible from the football field. At least that makes it less of a "town's racial issue" and instead, a one-insensitive person issue.

Okay, I'm done with it if y'all are.

I think a mascot that mocks another person's culture and/or heritage is an entirely different subject and not only is there no excuse for it but there's absolutely nothing good about it. I can't understand why so many people find this acceptable and why it seems to only happen with American Indians.

The bottom line is we're all of us here in favor of inclusion and racial harmony. I think we just have a slightly different approach to it.

Now back to the original topic of conversation . . .

[Parsec]

Originally Posted by SunnyHoney

Sounds like your daughter was not yet school-aged when you lived in Natick, right? I'm just wondering if you noticed any racial diversity in any of Natick's elementaries, but I'm sure I can find the stats online.

We were in Natick when she was in school for 2 years: K-1. Although the town is "only" 87% White, I never noticed many non-White students whenever I picked her up. If anything there were a few Chinese and Indian kids, but I never saw any Black or Hispanic kids. Or maybe I'm just colorblind when it comes to people :shrug:

[SunnyHoney]

MikePRU, on another thread made by a guy about a year ago, who had a budget larger than mine but otherwise had a very similar question as me, you replied to him saying that Natick didn't have many homes topping the $1M range. I'm now seeing quite a few home in Natick around $1.2M to $1.5M. I'm wondering, in your opinion, are those homes overpriced for the area? Did the market just go up there recently? Gradually or suddenly? Is the area more in-demand than it was a year ago, or are builders trying to drive up home values? Would Natick now be considered middle-class, upper-middle, or affluent?

Anyone else, please feel free to give me your opinion on the Natick market increases.

[accufitgolf]

It is like the old lines. Yes I live in Natick, but on the Needham side. Yes I live in Framingham, but on the Sudbury side. Mike is a good guy and can explain the differences if need be.

[Parsec]

Originally Posted by SunnyHoney

MikePRU, on another thread made by a guy about a year ago, who had a budget larger than mine but otherwise had a very similar question as me, you replied to him saying that Natick didn't have many homes topping the $1M range. I'm now seeing quite a few home in Natick around $1.2M to $1.5M. I'm wondering, in your opinion, are those homes overpriced for the area? Did the market just go up there recently? Gradually or suddenly? Is the area more in-demand than it was a year ago, or are builders trying to drive up home values? Would Natick now be considered middle-class, upper-middle, or affluent?

Anyone else, please feel free to give me your opinion on the Natick market increases.

The market went up here recently and very suddenly this year. However, with the $1MM+ homes, it may be just based on what happens to be in inventory at the moment. Builders stopped building new expensive homes in Natick a few years ago, but once the real estate market picked up again this year they all rushed to build the homes and put them on the market. Some people with newer homes may have waited to list their home because they could've originally purchased their homes for $1-1.5MM back in 2000-2004 when the market was hot and wanted to wait until they could get back what they paid for the house.