Report a Comment

i don't know that it's necessary that we _all_ agree, but yes, certainly, that is part of my point -- folks who don't view this post as being in poor taste may have one or of the following pov's:
1) they can't possibly see how anyone could take this post as offensive -- it's just a Lego post, etc.
2) they are unaware that gentrification is happening
3) they don't see gentrification as a problem
4) they see gentrification as doing more good than bad and therefore it's a self-justifying policy regardless of the fact that actual human beings are suffering
5) they see too much 'political correctness' in the world, and that means we occasionally have to punch hippies, gays, minorities, and the least privileged in the face
6) etc.

i've listened to the Phil Hendrie Show on the car radio and once or twice thought it was 'too much, too soon'. i've read hundreds of The Onion stories and actually felt 'ick' once or twice. it's not possible to be perfect, and people do study it, but a good rule of thumb is probably -- if your original version is 'too mean-spirited,' then maybe it might be worth looking at the underlying premise of your joke/humor -- or maybe it might be better to direct the brunt of your ridicule at the powerful instead of the powerless, as someone above mentioned.

Even if the title had been changed, it would have set a completely different tone. As we know from examining the headlines for major newspapers -- sometimes, the impact (or, non-impact) of a story is determined primarily by its headline, which is why staff writers don't get to author their own headlines. The headline could have easily been something more innocuous, like, "Streetcar Brings Big Changes to Legotown". I mean, the article wasn't even substantially about gentrification. If you're gonna make fun or poor and working-class people, at least have the common courtesy to do it right. A nearly-identical post on Dan's site uses the different title, "new streetcar brings controversy to lego city". Difference is night and day, imo.

And then the actual content of the faux-post has the 'working class' 'Sarah Belk' as a former doctor. Really? The folks being pushed out of neighborhoods are former doctors?

Nobody's gonna die from an off-color blog post, but the callousness or lack of sensitivity is what I see as problematic. ('problematical'? hate that word.) Some folks will say 'Gentrification is great, everyone's standard of living rises, the poor people have flat screen TVs and VCRs and blah blah blah' -- but anyone who's ever been poor knows that those things don't mean jack -- poor people want their dignity back -- they want jobs and access to jobs, and education, and they don't want to be forced out of their neighborhoods just when banks have stopped redlining, allowing some money to finally flow into the nabe, allowing general conditions to improve. So, what actually matters in the end is equality -- social equity -- not VCRs and flat screens. Start reducing/attacking some of the incredible wealth disparity that DC has achieved, and then have a run at poor and working-class people all you want -- i'll take that trade anytime.

@Dan - the link to from your GGW profile page to your blog is broken.

by Peter Smith on Dec 30, 2010 3:44 pm • link • report