for real. reading the history of the laws (the many laws) written to keep blacks away from anything empowering is quite dizzying and housing discrimination was a big one. laws keeping and taking land from blacks go way back (for example) and as society progressed, it morphed to fit the times. nowadays it’s housing discrimination and it’s rampant

Shonda Rhimes needs to make a show for Black kids and let him star.

How ironic. I was just talking about this.

This shit is serious. Gentrification is an issue. Housing discrimination is real. 

True stories:
-A Black family moving into a suburban neighborhood actually would lower the prices of homes. Because all the White people would try to move out as soon as possible.
-If the new suburb was next to a non-White neighborhood, a fence could be put up “for safety” to instantly raise property values.
-Have you heard the term redline/-ing? It refers to the practice of corporations color coding a region and not investing in or refusing service to those from certain (red) areas. These were usually poor Black neighborhoods. This included refusing those in redlined areas access to jobs, loans, medical care, etc.
-Many older developments that were predominately home to poor PoC were destroyed with the promise of a new development or a suburb. This almost never happened and left the country with a shortage of affordable housing that still exists today.
-“Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.”

White people whose family has owned homes since the mid 20th century: The financial success and safety of our families and ourselves is completely based on racism. Never forget that.

Read more:

This needs more notes. People need to know just how this society made it a point at every turn to hold (and still hold today) Black people down for the benefit of whites.

A huge part of white wealth was created through real estate. A sector that Black people were systematically kept out of. A sector now where Black people are still preyed upon.

White real estate agents also took advantage of racist white homeowners with a practice called blockbusting, where they would encourage them to sell their homes at a loss with just the hint or promise that a black family (or sometimes Jewish or nonblack PoC family, depending on the region) was going to move in.

There were also footnotes on the actual deeds for many houses in white neighborhoods, stipulating that the house was never allowed to be sold or rented to a nonwhite occupant (Jewish people were nearly always considered nonwhite for these purposes). Called restrictive covenants, these were demanded and upheld by white homeowners associations, often with the real threat of violence.

Racist housing discrimination is as American as apple pie at a baseball game.

and this brings us to the current situation where the supreme court is going to take a look at the “Disparate Impact” rule of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. What disparate impact rule does is keep people from trying to discriminate against protected groups in America though subtle means. In our society, racism is very subtle especially when it’s corporate. So instead of putting out a sign that says “whites only” in front of building, a landlord can simply refuse to entertain people with a “Black” sounding name. In doing so they can say that their screening process has nothing to do with race but yet their process negatively impacts Black people and under this rule would be considered illegal. Another example would be banks deciding to issue loans at a higher interest rate to people in a certain part of town and claiming that doing so has nothing to do with race when in fact they are well aware that said part of town is populated by mostly Black people. So again, not blatant, quite subtle but under the disparate impact rule illegal. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the legality of this rule and, given their history of gutting civil right protections, could very well strike it down. If that happens, the flood gates of housing discrimination will be wide open and Black people, above all, are going to get hammered.

The case the Supreme Court will here is actually a great example of the subtle racial discrimination and racist practices the rule was made to fight. A Texas state agency awards low-income-housing tax credits to certain developers; a high percentage of this housing winds up being occupied by minorities. The agency, without giving a legitimate reason, granted the tax credits disproportionately to developers who own properties in impoverished, minority-majority neighborhoods. A fair housing group sued, insisting that the agency’s practices had the effect of keeping minorities trapped in minority communities while helping white communities keep minorities out. Simple. A subtle action was taken that had huge negative affect on minorities because where you live is everything in this country. From access to public transportation, healthy foods, clean air, emergency services, well resourced schools, playgrounds, cleanliness and etc are all affect by where you live and if an action is creating a circumstance that keeps a group of people locked in areas where those elements are below average, there’s a problem. Racism and discrimination in this country is subtle as fuck but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and shouldn’t be fought. What the SCOTUS is going to do is anyone’s guess but I’m not optimistic. We could very well be looking at a long period where Blacks (as well as other minority groups) are going to be preyed upon more viciously than we’ve seen in a very long time. 

There’s a bunch of re-blogs of this without the caption, smfh. DO NOT REMOVE THE TEXT ABOVE!! THERE IS VITAL INFORMATION HERE!!!


hey writers if you want to make a metaphor for racism, please maybe remember that racism is literally based on nothing. Africans weren’t enslaved en masse because the Robo-Musa threatened to destroy the world, they were enslaved because it was economically rewarding and politically convenient. If at any point your allegory for racism includes “so <oppressed group> did this major catastrophe and” then you have not only missed the point but you are literally reinforcing the ideas that racism have let racism self-perpetuate (that e.g. black people are naturally dangerous and violent and must be contained or begrudgingly accepted by the Nice White People)


Ida B. Wells was an African American who achieved national and international fame as a journalist, public speaker, and community activist. In 1892, Ida began a crusade that would prove to be her main life’s work. Through her writing and her speaking engagements, she carried out a national campaign against the unacceptable practice lynching—the burning, hanging, or shooting of a personal without a trial. Her passion and determination to inform the public put her into great danger, but she wanted to battle the lynchers and the people who didn’t care; she wouldn’t rest until she knew the truth. She uncovered the truth of lynching and impacted our history as well as journalism. Why were her writings so powerful and what truth did they uncover?

When she found out three of her friends were killed she decided that it was her job as a newspaper to inform the public of what was going on. Shortly after the murders Ida took action and wrote an article about why Memphis is not a safe place to live.

Ida said,

“The city of Memphis has demonstrated that neither character nor standing avails the Negro if he dares to protect himself against the white man or become his rival. There is nothing we can do about the lynching now, as we are outnumbered and without arms. The white mob could help itself to ammunition, but the order was rigidly enforced against the selling of guns to Negroes. There is therefore only one thing left that we can do: Save our money and leave a town which will neither protect our lives and property, nor give us a fair trial in the courts, but takes us out and murders us in cold blood when accused by white persons.” (5/ pg.44)

Did people listen to her? Yes, blacks decided to leave Memphis; whether they took a train, walked, or reveled by wagons. The blacks who stayed behind stood up for themselves by saying no to working for white families or shopping at white grocery stores. She traveled to Oklahoma and wrote letters to the Free Speech describing Oklahoma as “the land of opportunity.“ Blacks began to travel there shortly after her publication.

Ida decided to research lynching and the past affects it has in society as opposed to the current. She then began to research individual cases to learn about the people who were involved. She ended up publishing her findings even though these articles could put her in danger. Her writing was not only powerful, but it was personal and relevant to her audience.

Wells decided having a gun would be a good idea because of the content she has been writing about. She wrote:

"Eight Negroes lynched since the last issue of the Free Speech… five on the same old racket—the alarm about raping white women. The program of hanging, then shooting bullets into the lifeless bodies was carried out to the letter. Nobody in this section of the country believes the old threadbare lie that Negro men rape white women. If southern white men are not careful, they will overreach themselves and … a conclusion will be reached which will be very damaging to the moral reputation of their women.” (5/ pg.53)

What Ida wrote above is very powerful. She says that black men and white woman sometimes fall in love and what whites called rape was actually two people who loved one another.

This editorial above was published on Saturday, May 21, 1892.

Before this was published Ida left to Philadelphia to attend a convention of the American Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church and then visited New York City as a guest of T. Thomas Fortune, the editor of the New York Age.

 While Ida was gone the citizens of Memphis became angry. Other media began to speak of Ida badly. The Memphis Daily Commercial called her a “black scandal” and implied that she was “allowed to live as evidence as to the wonderful patience of southern whites. But we have had enough of it.” They the said that whoever wrote this should be, “tied to a stake at the intersection of Main and Madison streets, branded in the forehead with a hot iron, and [tortured] with tailor’s sheers” (5/ pg.54)

 If I were Ida I would run for dear life and that’s just what she ended up doing. There was a citizens meeting where Edward Carmack, the editor of Memphis Daily Commercial created a committee to deal with Ida B. Wells and J.L. Fleming, owners of Free of Speech. The owners got away so the mob (the committee) went after an employee who left six months prior to this incident. The mob beat him and threatened him by holding a gun to his head. They had him sign a paper saying that Free Speech was a slander on white woman. The white people wanted to make sure Ida wouldn’t publish again so they destroyed her office and left a threatening note saying that anyone tried to publish the newspaper again death would occur.

         This whole time Ida had no idea what was going on back home. She ended up having to stay in New York because if she went back she would have been a dead woman.

         T. Thomas Fortune invited Ida to write a column a week and to become one-fourth owner of the New York Age to help boost his newspaper. Ida now left her live in the south and began fresh in the north.

         Ida was truly a saint who became one of the world’s first investigative reporters. She was a heroine for exposing the truth about lynching. She continued to write and wrote one of the most detailed articles about lynching of all time. This was published on the front page of the New York Age on June 25, 1892 called “Exiled.”

         A white Memphis newspaper later responds to this article by saying that she still prints scandalous articles. The public had a different opinion, most were grateful for her research.  Fredrick Douglass went to Ida and told her how her article was eye opening to him.

         Douglass inspired Ida to write a pamphlet, expanding on materials covered in her articles called Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases.

  In conclusion, Ida. B Wells stood up for what she believed in. She is truly a powerful woman. She completed her mission and informed the public what was going on. I thought it was neat that lynching was almost gone by the time she died in March 1931. She truly made an impact in history. 

Works Cited

(1) McMurry, Linda. To Keep The Waters Troubled: The Life of Ida B. Wells. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.

(2) Royster, Jones Jacqueline. Southern Horrors and Other Writings: The Anti- Lynching Campaign of Ida B. Wells, 1892-1900. New York: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.

(3) Schechter, Patricia. Ida B. Wells Barnett and American Reform, 1880-1930: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Print.

(4) Giddings, Paula. Ida: A Sword Among Lions. New York:HarperCollins, 2008. Print.

(5) Fradin, Brindell Dennis, and Judith Bloom Fradin. Ida B. Wells: Mother of the Civil Rights Movement. New York: Clarion Books, 2000. Print.

(6) Black, Car Patti. “Ida B. Wells: A Courageous Voice for Civil Rights,” Mississippi History, 2001. Web. 28 Feb. 2012



Over 130,000 adults combined in Florida and North Carolina are banned from reading The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander’s award-winning book about the effects of mass incarceration, according to a report by The New York Times.

Earlier this month, the ACLU blasted New Jersey state prisons for what it said was an unconstitutional ban of the book.  “That the very prisoners who experience the worst racial disparity in incarceration in the country should be prohibited from reading a book whose precise purpose is to examine and educate about that disparity adds insult to injury,” the ACLU said.  Suddenly under fire, the New Jersey Department of Corrections quickly lifted the ban that very same day.  But clearly, banning The New Jim Crow is a trend.

According to the Times, the Florida prison system’s literature review document reveals that the book is banned there because of “racial overtures.”  In North Carolina, the reason cited is that the book is “likely to provoke confrontation between racial groups.”

The New Jim Crow details the ways in which the racial disparity of mass incarceration (black men are six times more likely to be imprisoned than white men) has allowed the country to continue to control and surveil people of color.  That the book is banned is no accident.  As Alexander told the Times, “Some prison officials are determined to keep the people they lock in cages as ignorant as possible about the racial, social and political forces that have made the United States the most punitive nation on earth.  Perhaps they worry the truth might actually set the captives free.”

In The New Jim Crow Alexander writes, “As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow.  We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.”  There is perhaps no better proof of this than the banning of her own book.


What the actual fuck is this bullshit?

Thank you to @mizstorge for the link.

“The New Jim Crow” Has Been Banned in Both Florida and North Carolina Prisons



the reason why publications like the NYT put out these weird profile pieces on white supremacists and drone on and on about how they are just “regular run of the mill average” people is because it’s actually fascinating to these always-white and always-liberal journalists that these nazis can be so shockingly like them. they’re obsessed with why people who are so similar to them in every way (i.e. middle class, well-educated, typical household-of-america) would choose to promote so much violence against racialized people. 

every one of those articles scream “i’m not like this…so why are you?” because these pretentious, clueless Ivy league brats are so befuddled why white people so identical to them could be so hateful. 

it’s never surprising to anyone living a life of marginalization that the nazi next door likes typical shit like Friends or onion rings but these journalists obsess over it. their assumption is always that nazis and white supremacists and racists are these clear-cut monsters that they have nothing in common with, and their main concern is the ability to feel safe about being different from them. 

no matter how educated they are, white people literally cannot fathom white supremacy as a constant, everlasting component in the organizational fibre of eurocentric societies – it’s always “fringe” or some other distant ideology they have nothing to do with – “those guys over there are the problem” 

so when they’re confronted with this truth that, actually, white supremacists have always been their uncles, husbands, girlfriends and cousins, it feels like a 100% novel discovery to them and that’s why they write those fucking essays about Nate the white supremacist like they’ve just unearthed some new and riveting truth about humankind 

@zanabism 👏👏👏.

Paging Nick Spencer….




reasons to love frank sinatra: regularly punched out bigots even tho he was a shrimp who only weighed 119lbs

didn’t he allegedly try to kill woody allen as well?

there are allegations that he tried to have him taken out by the mafia. mia farrow also said that frank offered to break his legs.