Thursday, January 12, 2012
Landlord Defends "White Only" sign
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/us/us-whites-only-pool/index.html?hpt=us_c2
When does learning about history cross the boundaries into inappropriate? In one way or another, most people (if not all) are haunted by their past. This is no exception to countries and cultures. Perhaps one of the most arguably darkest stain upon the cultural robes of America arise from African American intolerance, or racism. While politicians and legislative bodies across the country have attempted to wash out the malignant memory with amendments and laws, many people unfortunately continue to secretly harbor their intolerance--even to this day. Learning about history includes learning about both the roses and the thorns, the good days and the bad. But--coming back to my original question--to what extent do we allow historical details and facts play apart in our life? Many schools and educational institutions provide censorship requirements when teaching children about the holocaust, slavery, riots and rebellions, crimes, etc. Occasionally, we may be required to censor how people display historical artifacts regarding some of these historical incidents.
In Ohio, a landlord recently posted a sign that read "Public Swimming Pool: White Only" outside of her swimming pool. She claimed that this sign was a historical artifact and that her intention for posting it was not racial by any means. Earlier, she and one of her tenants had an argument concerning his biracial daughter. The landlord would not allow the tenant's daughter to enter the pool because she would "cloud the pool because of chemicals she used in her hair."After this argument the tenant claimed the sign was posted outside of the pool.
After reading this article and watching the video I am not convinced of her "historical artifact" rebuttal to the state's insistence for the sign's removal. How could anyone who has seen that sign assume that it was posted because of a historical significance? I imagine anyone who saw that sign would assume it was out of pure racial intolerance. However, on the other hand, asking the landlord to remove that sign might be considered unconstitutional based on free speech, if the landlord actually allowed African Americans into her pool and she did not enforce the sign's message (although it might not be the best advertising for prospective tenants).
--Collin Cannavo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Collin, I appreciate your perspective. In my own life, I have found that sometimes crossing the “historical boundaries” you speak about has to do with displaying artifacts and sharing stories in appropriate contexts.
ReplyDeleteSurely you would not display the shackles used to mangle slaves on your living room wall without creating an outcry. However, those same shackles would serve a useful purpose in a history class or a local museum.
When a family has some darker secrets that can now be made public, as all participants in the events are long buried, should they? I believe discussions, by the descendants involved in making such decisions, might revolve around the good to be obtained by making such information public versus the damage done to the reputation of those gone on.
In some cases, I believe it is best to honor the privacy of the dead and destroy artifacts that would attest against their darker days. At other times, I believe that even a “white only” sign (which story you have to aptly described), preserved and displayed in the right context, would provide a welcome reminder that what we were and how we treated others before--is not what we choose to do now.
Marie Ricks, Sociology 113, Section 2
It seems too much of a coincidence to me that the landlord would have a dispute with this young girl and then happen to put a derogatory "artifact" out at the same time unintentionally. There are many days when I feel like America is making huge strides in equality, but I am often reminded by stories such as this one, that my own experience may not be the case for the rest of the people in the United States.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Whited
I agree with Matt above. It is too much of a coincidence that the landlord "unintentionally" had that sign up with a derogatory meaning. I cannot imagine and feelings that any race felt as they walked past this fence and saw this sign. I feel like feelings would be hurt regardless the race. Stories like this make me so grateful for the changes we have made as a country to stop racial separation among us. Although some people may not still fully comply with the standards that have been set, America has come a long way and I am forever in debt towards the people that had to suffer through racial discrimination.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Diederich, Sociology 113, Section 1.
Flat-out, I agree that the "White Only" sign is completely out of line socially and constitutionally. I would, however, really like to see people's reasoning behind WHY they think it is wrong. Would they feel the same if it said "No Hispanics" or "No Muslims." There has been a lot of talk about the proposal to pay reparations to African Americans for the injustice many of their ancestors endured. I believe this is just another insult. It would seem that those who support the reparations feel the African Americans need more help than the rest of Americans.
ReplyDeleteBryce Cook, Sociology 113, Section 3.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClearly the "White Only" sign is a flimsy excuse for an unacceptable decision: A chemically treated pool is no place to display a "historical artifact", and while it's true that ethnic hair is often treated with chemicals that might cloud the pool, the gel I put on my curly hair also clouds the pool (not to mention the sunscreen, deodorant, make-up, lotions, etc. that most pool-goers apply). A sign indicating that pool visitors rinse off prior to jumping in the pool is usually sufficient, and historical artifacts are usually best utilized when the historical knowledge and facts are provided with it (aka a history museum, or lecture).
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the landlord was merely employing a revenge tactic (possibly the most infuriating and offensive tactic she could think of) targeted specifically at the young woman merely as a result of the altercation, or whether the sign would have eventually been posted anyway, due to racial sentiments. Either way, it's truly unfortunate when people try to use the most offensive and cutting attacks and retaliations, and that many areas/people still have the mentality that their forefathers cultivated hundreds of years ago.
-Michelle Spencer
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this is akin to putting a swastika up and claiming you're just displaying some history. Putting that sign up was ignorant and blatantly racist.
ReplyDeleteHistorical artifacts are undoubtedly important, but when people want to learn about the history of racism or the holocaust, they go to a museum. This was a completely inappropriate place to display an "artifact." Why would you want to remind your tenants of a time in history when civil rights were being violated left and right, anyway?
Though this was an extreme case, minorities still deal with racism every day. I think this video is an important reminder that we still have a long way to go on the road to equality, and that a colorblind society is a utopia, not the reality.
Kali Shiloh