Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I was a teen and our family was looking for a new home, we saw the racial covenants that were written into some of the real estate agreements. It's a particularly ugly side of our legacy.
The expense involved was not worth the effort. The day the Civil rights Act was signed made all those convents obsolete. No point paying a lawyer to remove.
This is just a construct tool being used to implement Socialism/Communism in this country. The United States is the only thing interfering with the Globalist Agenda, and this is what they are using to try to the country down.
I have been in the market looking at various properties and homes in recent months. At one point a RE agent who sounded "fruity" to begin with, referred to the master bedroom as the "owners bedroom".
I asked what that meant, since if I bought the home, the entire home would be mine, not just the bedroom I chose to sleep in.
He/she/whatever explained that master bedroom had been deemed to be racist, thus they had to call the master bedroom the owners bedroom.
Not that I accepted his interpretation of the origins of the term.
I don't care how the term ever came about, nor do I care, as I just want to find a home that meets XYZ criteria.
I made it very clear that if he used the woke PC term of "owners bedroom" again, our business relationship would end upon it's utterance.
He then said, "well you will not report me if I agree not no offend you by saying owners bedroom".
WT?
I was not "offended", rather I am not going to accept the leftist brainwashing from anyone I might be putting my hard earned money into their pocket.
Who on God's green earth would know what we were discussing while viewing homes anyway.
Frankly, it sounded like he was into the change, but feigned being perplexed, trying to appease me.
I made it clear he only had to fear being PC/woke around me, otherwise there was no issue.
Basically he needed to channel his many years of experience/references, not adopt the new leftist rubbish to keep our professional relationship intact.
As a Realtor, I can say this. What was brought to us was a video to watch about treating everyone the same, and not discriminating against people for reasons of color, age, religion, etc...
I will also say that there are a LOT of realtors that I personally know who are willing to only work with people that look like them, or act like them, or hang in their circles. I don't know if this constitutes racism or not. It's more about doing business with those you have relationships with.
If anyone came to me and asked for help, they'd get help, it's what I love doing. But, I don't go out of my way to market to certain groups or races or whatnot, I just help who needs help.
Let's pose a hypothetical here. If a Japanese born realtor who speaks fluent Japanese finds that 100% of her/his business is coming from Japanese clients because they are comfortable speaking their native language when doing business... is that Realtor racist because of her/his actions?
Under the new policies, I can see the Japanese agent being called out for lack of diversity of client. But really, it would depend on the agent's environment. Is the agent turning away non-Japanese people because they are non-Japanese, or is the agent emersed in a Japanese community and the clients are seeking out an agent who speaks Japanese?
As far as the blacks only town, would it be racist if the article was about " a [white/Asian/Latino/etc] realtor in Atlanta who wants to create a [white/Asian/Latino/etc] only town and works with a [white/Asian/Latino/etc] investor/developer to make this happen"? Aren't Realtors supposed to treat EVERYONE the SAME regardless of race?
Then let me repeat again, capitalism is a system which has only ever existed with government support. Or to put it another way, governments created it. And not democratic governments either. They were created by monarchs in collusion with merchants and bankers to turn profits for the kingdom, keeping money flowing in through international trade. It was in-effect a geopolitical strategy for money, because money can fund armies and navies, spread influence, etc. The monarchs who implemented capitalism became rich and powerful.
Since capitalism was only created by governments for the purpose of power, then whatever form of capitalism that exists, exists only for the extension of that power. Which is why all capitalist governments engage in various forms of protectionism, subsidization, monetary manipulation, asset inflation, among other things.
And because capitalism only came into existence as part of a larger international rivalry, and since it is all about competitive advantage in world markets, then capitalism is necessarily international, and needs to make profits wherever it can.
Thus as I said in the first place, capitalism is necessarily global. That is the whole point. You CANNOT separate globalism from capitalism. You cannot be anti-globalist and a capitalist. Every capitalist is a globalist(the actual ones who run businesses, not serf wagies like you).
Then let me repeat again, capitalism is a system which has only ever existed with government support. Or to put it another way, governments created it. And not democratic governments either. They were created by monarchs in collusion with merchants and bankers to turn profits for the kingdom, keeping money flowing in through international trade. It was in-effect a geopolitical strategy for money, because money can fund armies and navies, spread influence, etc. The monarchs who implemented capitalism became rich and powerful.
Since capitalism was only created by governments for the purpose of power, then whatever form of capitalism that exists, exists only for the extension of that power. Which is why all capitalist governments engage in various forms of protectionism, subsidization, monetary manipulation, asset inflation, among other things.
And because capitalism only came into existence as part of a larger international rivalry, and since it is all about competitive advantage in world markets, then capitalism is necessarily international, and needs to make profits wherever it can.
Thus as I said in the first place, capitalism is necessarily global. That is the whole point. You CANNOT separate globalism from capitalism. You cannot be anti-globalist and a capitalist. Every capitalist is a globalist(the actual ones who run businesses, not serf wagies like you).
The NAR is now pushing "Diversity, Equity & Inclusion" policy.
From the NAR's article, 'Lead the Way to a More Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive Future':
"Equity ensures everyone receives fair treatment and equal access to resources, opportunities, and success."
There is no such thing as "equal access to resources, opportunities, and success." People are born into different circumstances and more importantly, they make different life choices that influence their access to resources, opportunities, and potential for success.
If everyone was given $100,000, they would not all be in the same situation the next day.
"...learn ways to foster a sense of belonging and promote distributive justice as you assimilate DEI into your leadership style."
(example of Distributive Justice: "evaluates the impact of an auto-centric environment. We must ensure that transportation includes [space and safety] for bikes, people with disabilities, micro-mobility, and pedestrians.")
Sounds like it's time for a bicycle tax so bicyclists can pay for what they use.
What about people restricted to bed? Do we need to make gurney lanes and provide someone to push them?
"...'Walk the walk' at work by creating a diversity taskforce, developing DEI policies, ensuring fair hiring and promotion practices, implementing training and soliciting feedback."
By "fair", do they mean selecting people for the job based on their skill set or by their race, color, religion, sex, sexual proclivities, disability (handicap), familial status, or national origin?
"In a nation based on a constitution that guarantees equality for all, decades of planning and land-use policy has created inequity."
The author of the article doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of free market economics or the US Constitution. The constitution doesn't guarantee equality for all. The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
"...decisions tend to be based on creating individual wealth vs. a holistic gain for the community..."
Of course, in a free society, decisions tend to be based on creating individual wealth. Either wealth creation happens through voluntary exchange between consenting adults or it's done through forced redistribution (ultimately, forced redistribution takes place at the end of a gun - government ultimately enforces its laws through violence).
The NAR is promoting a book titled "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo
Can you imagine the backlash if the NAR prompted a book described as "reactions [ethnicity of choice] people have when their assumptions about race are challenged, and how these reactions maintain racial inequality."?
Isn't the NAR concerned about making white people feel accepted, valued, and supported by a foundation built on trust and mutual respect?
Why is the NAR treating people differently based on color?
Seems like the National Association of Realtors should go back to treating everyone EQUALLY, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, since the NAR's new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion agenda seemS to be in direct conflict with the Civil Rights Act.
Lotta blah blah there but KISS.
A Realtor is representing buyers and sellers. If they got a black buyer/seller, they should probably just act color blind and allow the banks to handle the risk component of the deals. Particuarly that's true when a Realtor is representing the seller side. They probably should not be in the practice of advising the sellers not to consider offers from coloreds with the justification being they're unqualified buyers who won't be able to secure financing.That's just my take not being the the industry. If there's an an actual issue with unqualified blacks submitting offers and then causing problems because they can't get financing then perhaps I'm out of line and it's entirely reasonable for Realtors to advise their clients not to consider offers from blacks.
Where there's an actual issue isn't so much with Realtors. It's with banks. There you do have at least a historical basis that banks ignore actual credit risk and give and deny loans on the basis of race.
A Realtor is representing buyers and sellers. If they got a black buyer/seller, they should probably just act color blind and allow the banks to handle the risk component of the deals. Particuarly that's true when a Realtor is representing the seller side. They probably should not be in the practice of advising the sellers not to consider offers from coloreds with the justification being they're unqualified buyers who won't be able to secure financing.That's just my take not being the the industry. If there's an an actual issue with unqualified blacks submitting offers and then causing problems because they can't get financing then perhaps I'm out of line and it's entirely reasonable for Realtors to advise their clients not to consider offers from blacks.
Where there's an actual issue isn't so much with Realtors. It's with banks. There you do have at least a historical basis that banks ignore actual credit risk and give and deny loans on the basis of race.
No one should be treated differently based on their skin color.
After all the redlining, blockbusting, unequal appraisals, blatant housing discrimination, etc, that went on, for decades, and proven to still do, it's about doggone time this entire industry changes! If it means realtors becoming "woke," great!
And by "woke," I mean yes, treating everyone equally in homebuying; sad that this is still a problem!
After all the redlining, blockbusting, unequal appraisals, blatant housing discrimination, etc, that went on, for decades, and proven to still do, it's about doggone time this entire industry changes! If it means realtors becoming "woke," great!
And by "woke," I mean yes, treating everyone equally in homebuying; sad that this is still a problem!
Treating everyone equally, regardless of skin color, in homebuying isn't woke. Equality should be the standard.
From what I've read, what the National Association of Realtors is doing now is advocating "Diversity", which is appears to be a form of discrimination, and "Equity", which appears to be a form of redistribution/reparations discrimination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
