Home / General / Busing

Busing

Comments
/
/
/
627 Views

The end of an era in Boston, as school busing is officially ended.

It’s true that busing didn’t really work very well. It was a clunky approach to a horrible problem of school inequality. It was an incredibly brave plan, particularly in the face of the extraordinary racism in Boston during the 1970s. I’m not sure how it could have really worked in a functional way though.

Meanwhile, for all our patting our own backs about racism not being as bad as it was forty years ago, school segregation and inequality remain intractable problems.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • One semester teaching Civil Rights and Liberties, we had just covered the reaction to Brown in the South (next section was desegregation efforts in the North) a student walked up to me and said – ‘I just can’t relate to this. We didn’t have any of these problems where I grew up – Boston.”

    I was flummoxed.

    • Someone just needs to talk to their parents.

    • MAJeff

      I always used to remind my Boston students, “Yeah, Little Rock rioted in the 1950s, you guys were still rioting in the 1970s.”

    • The myth that everything was fine in the North is a powerful one.

      • Yep. Still has real resonance and real power too. Racism is a southern problem. Uh, yeah right….

        • rea

          It’s not as if Topeka, Kansas is southern, either.

          • efgoldman

            Nor Chicago, Detroit, New York….

            • Uncle Kvetch

              …Philly. Holy shit, Philly.

              • Njorl

                I remember when busing started in Philadelphia. I was in 4th grade. I had never met any black kids, so it was easy for the older racist kids to convince me of terrible things. I got in a lot of fights, and whaddyaknow, the black kids didn’t pull a chain on me, or knife me, or all gang up on me.

                There’s no doubt in my mind by the time I left junior high that most of the other students still held a lot of animosity toward students of the other race (my schools were almost entirely black and white) , but it was a lot less than 100%, which was about the level when busing started.

          • Halloween Jack
            • TribalistMeathead

              I grew up in the Chicago suburbs and it’s hard to believe that I was taught that racism and segregation were exclusively Southern phenomena when, 30 miles away, the Chicago Housing Authority was doing a damn fine job of keeping the poor segregated into crumbling high-rise housing projects. By people who’d perpetuated white flight, no less.

    • Davis X. Machina

      ‘Boston’, as in the city of Boston? Or ‘Boston’, as in one of those leafy MetroWest suburbs? Because they might as well be on different planets.

      • efgoldman

        Because they might as well be on different planets.

        Not so much,anymore. Huge swaths of the city are turning into Brooklyn East – gentrified with pricey condos everywhere you look. Even the old ethnic neighborhoods – Southie, Eastie, the North End – are very much changed.
        If you mean, the court order? It applied only to the geographical city itself.

    • Your student was clearly not from South Boston.

      People in Massachusetts can be insular on a very small geographic scale. People from one neighborhood of Boston can be surprisingly out of touch with other Boston neighborhoods, and Boston is a not a spread-out city.

      I’ve heard of people in Everett, a city just across a river from Boston, who have never been across that river.

      • efgoldman

        I’ve heard of people in Everett, a city just across a river from Boston, who have never been across that river.

        In fairness, the river in question is the Mystic. Crossing it can be hazardous to your health.

        • Halloween Jack

          I don’t think that anyone was talking about swimming across.

          • Malaclypse

            No, but the old Rt 93 bridge was pretty hazardous as well.

      • Davis X. Machina

        My family, from Weymouth, when they went into the city for errands, or to see the doctor, meant Quincy. And took the Patriot Ledger, but not the Globe or the Herald

      • JL

        Boston is in fact the least spread-out substantial-sized city I’ve ever been in (I did grow up in the South, where cities tend to sprawl, but I’ve been to other Northeastern cities).

        Given that, it is weirdly class- and race-stratified. I never understood how it maintains that sort of stratification when most neighborhoods are only a few blocks long and a ten-minute walk will get you into a totally different place. And I’ve been in the area more than nine years now.

      • Halloween Jack

        I was fairly astonished, during my short time in NYC, when I was talking to some coworkers in Brooklyn and they said that they rarely went into Manhattan. Sometime later, I was reading a book on Chinatown in which one of the residents had lived his whole life there, never learned English, and never went outside the neighborhood.

    • In an undergraduate sociology course (in Boston) we had to look through old microfilm of 70’s era newspapers to find articles about busing… it was one of those make your students do your research grunt work for credit things that is probably not allowed anymore. Regardless, growing up in Baltimore, I was pretty shocked to learn they were still doing busing and it was such a huge controversy… and it is really not something anybody ever talks about.

  • efgoldman

    I grew up in the Boston area, turned 30 in 1975. The undercurrent was always there, but I and lots of other people were gobsmacked by the Alabama-like reaction to Judge Garrity’s decision.
    Garrity was right, BTW, but he should have extended it, as they did in some other cities, to the inside-route-128 burbs.
    Amid all the shouting, and demonstrations, and rock-throwing, and shitty politicians taking advantage (Louis Day Hicks and John Kerrigan, principally), this picture was the single most embarrassing and shameful thing of the whole period.
    http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0803/the-photograph-that-shocked-america-and-the-victim-who-stepped-outside-the-frame.html

    • Richard

      I dont think the results have been much better in the instances where busing was extended to the suburbs. Unlike the South or places like Topeka that had de jure school segregation, school segregation in the north was unfortunately not solvable by judicial remedies like busing because busing couldn’t do anything to remedy residential segregation (or do much about entrenched racism).

      I would be interested in seeing if there are studies comparing areas that had mandatory busing programs with areas that did not and see the results over time on segregated schooling.

      • Don K

        Given the reaction in the Detroit area in ’72 when there was a (short-lived) busing order that included the suburbs, I’m inclined to agree that including the suburbs in a busing order doesn’t make anything better.

        • john (not mccain)

          i lived in louisville for grades 8-12. the school system covered all of jefferson county and so did the busing order. can’t see how it accomplished much in terms of racial harmony given that even though the hallways were full of black and white students my classes were almost always 100% white.

          • Cody

            If I recall, they just ended busing a few years ago. A couple of my close friends grew up in Louisville (I’m from the Indiana side), and still referred to the schools as “black” or “white” as they were all basically racially homogeneous. Unsure of how that was possible. Count on Louisville to make it so!

            • JL

              Under the Louisville quota system (at least in the late ’90s/early ’00s), every school, with a couple of exceptions, had to be 15-50% black. A school that is 85% white and 15% black, as quite a few were, is still pretty homogenous.

          • JL

            Louisville (I grew up there too) at least eventually got creative about implementation, giving every high school specialized magnet or vocational programs and filling inner-city schools with attractive programs that both benefited the local kids who went to the school and drew white kids. It wasn’t perfect but it meant that a lot of kids of different races were busing voluntarily, and also improved some schools (both rich and poor ones) by giving them resources and letting them develop strengths.

    • Davis X. Machina

      (Louis Day Hicks and John Kerrigan, principally)

      Where’s the love for Freddy Langone? For Pixie Paladino? Shameless anti-Italian prejudice. We’re just as capable of high-quality race-baiting as any other ethnic group.

      • efgoldman

        Hey, I just remembered Kerrigan and Hicks off the top of my head. Hicks got a term in Congress out of it.
        Freddie really only cared about things that affected his funeral home, and went out of his way to make sure it was excused from annoyances like regulations.

        • efgoldman

          Pixie was more an Annoyance with a capital A than anything else. She made a lot of noise.

          • Davis X. Machina

            I gotta go find my old R.O.A.R (Restore Our Alienated Rights) t-shirt….

        • This seems like a good time to remind people that Joe Moakley was one of the genuine good-guys in American political history. He lost the Democratic primary to Hicks because of his refusal to go along with the race-baiting, then came back and won it as an independent. After that, he has the biggest thorn in Reagan’s side on the issue of human rights violations by right-wing governments in Latin America.

          • JoyfulA

            Thanks! It’s heartwarming to hear good things about someone, especially a politician.

          • After that, he has the biggest thorn in Reagan’s side on the issue of human rights violations by right-wing governments in Latin America.

            And his chief aide in that regard, Jim McGovern, has been my congressman since the late 1990s.

      • Don K

        Not Boston, I know, but what about Frank Rizzo (I’m showing my Philly upbringing now)?

        • Malaclypse

          Well, Frank was more about the police brutality than the busing. When you keep a billy club on your tux, that’s not about education policy.

          • efgoldman

            Yeah, but as I understand it, said billy had a special affinity for darker skin.

        • It’s time to Move On.

    • Josh G.

      Garrity was right, BTW, but he should have extended it, as they did in some other cities, to the inside-route-128 burbs.

      Busing outside municipal boundaries was prohibited by the Supreme Court in Milliken v. Bradley (1974), which was decided the same year as Garrity’s desegregation ruling. This decision, combined with white flight from the cities, made busing unviable: since the middle class could opt out simply by moving to the suburbs, and therefore, busing would always pit working-class and poor whites against working-class and poor blacks and make racial tensions worse rather than reducing them.

  • cpinva

    just goes to show, racism transcends geographical boundaries. i was in high school in the early 70’s, in n.va. the busing was in richmond and parts south. i used to get boston, MA confused with our very own south boston, VA. turns out the two areas were more alike than different. rednecks are rednecks.

  • Jay B.

    Not, at all, to excuse Boston and I largely agree about the brave decision that Garrity made but the fact remains that a large portion of the state’s political and media establishment were also in favor of busing, which kind of negates the idea of “extraordinary racism”. And that the majority of the rioting and problems happened in Southie isn’t exactly a shock. Southie was intensely insular — in fact, as Lukas put it in the unmatched Common Ground, the busing crisis was a grudge match between the “real” Irish in Southie and the lace-curtain traitors like Garrity and Teddy Kennedy who supported it (to say nothing of the liberal Brahman WASP types).

    It’s interesting, though, that there was a problem, local government and the courts identified it and tried to change it. This alone is part of a deeper story than the simple narrative of the endemic racism of Boston.

  • LeeEsq

    Very OT but it seems the best place to mention this but it seems the best place to mention this and people might be interested; France just released the entire Dreyfuss file for the first time. Apparently one reason why Dreyfuss was selected as a fall man was to hide up a potentially explosive scandal involving homosexuals.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/dreyfus-proust-and-the-crimes-of-the-belle-epoque.html

  • Malaclypse

    I won’t know what to make of this until Manju shows up with Menino’s DW-NOMINATE scores.

  • Uncle Ebeneezer

    Earlier this year I was surprised when a fairly liberal friend of mine was talking about school systems and expressed his concern because his local property taxes are used to bring in minorities and it lowers the quality of the education and it’s not fair etc., etc. I’ve had multiple liberal-voting friends say things of this sort and it’s always struck me as strange. They want minority children to have every opportunity that wealthy/white children have…unless you’re discussing their actual school district and their specific child, in which case then school improvement quickly becomes secondary to (or even a direct threat to) getting what is best for their special snowflake.

    • I’m not surprised. A good portion of what I hear about hating on teachers’ unions and belief in high-stakes standardized testing and corporate charter schools comes from otherwise liberal people.

      • win2

        and they often couch their support of charter schools as stemming from their desire to provide better opportunities for poor, minority students

        • JL

          In my experience (which is with people who are relatively young and powerless, not rich 55 year-old donors who are corporate executives or something), in many cases this is actually what they believe, not a cover for something malicious. They just don’t understand all the background, the implications, what some of the charter school companies get up to, etc.

          • Anonymous

            That’s been my experience too. I remember one professor I had during college. He was a huge Democrat, (said he had “never voted Republican in my life”), and was very pro-labor, yet supported charter schools.

            Go figure.

            It probably doesn’t help that some of the public schools here in LA are quite bad.

    • True Lib

      Do you have any snowflakes? Maybe you can explain the nature of the compromise that desires less than the best possible opportunities for your offspring? Did you call any of the hypocrites out? Or have they just been “told” on an internet forum?

      • Malaclypse

        Part of the best possible outcome for my personal special snowflake is that she does not grow up assuming that white, middle-class, heterosexual perspectives are the only viewpoint with which to view the world.

        • True Lib

          Mine too. Their public school provided the bulk of that acceptance. But how will Ebeneezer change the culture if he fails to confront the perceived default paradigm? Is his special snowflake comment likely to change behavior, or does it require the uncomfortable work of risking social opprobrium? Dale Carnegie might shy away but change requires conflict, no?

        • Uncle Ebeneezer

          This. And that the policy that best serves everyone may not be the one that serves her best, individually.

          • True Lib

            That dodges the issue of personal confrontation and effective change. Are you content to disparage your so-called liberal friends by designating their children as “special snowflakes” instead of directly conveying the point about shared sacrifice. Snark away if that’s all you’ve got!!!

            • Uncle Ebeneezer

              See comment below. I did confront them (though it was more of a friendly conversation.) I believe I even used the exact words “special snowflake” in describing how that attitude is understandable and instinctive but can be problematic for solving societal inequality. They didn’t seem to feel all that disparaged by the phrase or any of the points I was making.

              • Njorl

                Did you consider organizing a demonstration on their lawn complete with giant puppets. The “Free Mumia” people could help with this.

                • Njorl

                  Sorry, that was a bit much (it wasn’t really directed at you either).

      • I don’t want my “snowflakes” going to school in a place that shares the coloration of the tundra. If you catch my drift. I realize I’m piling it pretty high here. Let me just plow on:

        I want them prepared to function in the real world much better than I was when I graduated high school in the Massachusetts suburbs.

        FWIW, I argue about school policy with other parents all the time. It’s what we do here.

      • Uncle Ebeneezer

        No snowflakes of my own. What’s your point? People can’t have opinions on education policy if they don’t have children? I’ll have to inform all the childless teachers I know. As for my friendsI did point out to them that when it comes to problems with our education system, I’m far more concerned with the children (typically minority/poor) who are getting a terrible education rather than the children (white/upper-middle class) who are getting good-but-not-great, or great-but-not-the-best educations. They understood and agreed in principle. They generally care about equal opportunity for poor/minority kids and are torn between their self-interests and concerns about the greater community. In other cases the conversation just moved on because neither of us really felt like arguing.

        • Njorl

          It’s actually understandable to a small extent. I know I have my moments of irrationality when defending my children’s interests. Everyone has the right to slack off when defending their own interests, but, morally, you don’t have that right when it comes to your children. It can drive you a little crazy.

          For that reason, localities really need to take parents’ actions with a grain of salt. Giving parents too much control of education policy is like letting a crime-victim’s family serve on a jury.

          • Uncle Ebeneezer

            Totally understandable. It’s one (of many reasons) I’m glad I don’t have any children. I know I would probably be much the same way because I would take the stewardship of these little beings just as seriously as the next person. And if the way I obsess about my special snowflake of a dog is any indication, I might be substantially worse! But at the end of the day whether it might not be best for my dog to be neutered or get shots for a disease she is unlikely to get, it’s still better for all dogs that she get both even if it makes both of our days a little less sunny.

            The part that was most interesting about the case with my friends’ remarks were that they both contained a subtle “those people” tone from people that otherwise never would say something so close to the border of prejudice. It’s one of the few issues where I have heard liberals make fairly sweeping negative statements about a large swath of people.

            I totally agree with you on the grain of salt and fortunately from what I hear most educators and administrators seem to do that.

            • True Lib

              Sure… Liberals are colorblind or without prejudice in all cases except regarding their snowflakes. Or one of the few you say… rendering your original point toothless and or obvious. Snowflake dogs and neutering or routine shots… analogy fail!!!

        • L2P

          I’m amazed that you’re really surprised that people are willing to sacrifice money, but not risk their children’s future.

          Where do you think your liberal friends should draw the line? If their local elementary school is a low-performing, low-SES school, do they lose their liberal cred if they send their kids to a charter school? Are they prohibited from hiring tutors because poor black children can’t? Are they required to affirmatively bus their children to low-performing, low-SES schools to show their liberalness?

          The concerns are simple and easy to understand. If your kids are going to a good school, and ANYTHING is happening to change that school, it’s a risk. You don’t want that – if you have children.

          • D2K

            The concerns are simple and easy to understand. If your kids are going to a good school, and ANYTHING is happening to change that school, it’s a risk. You don’t want that – if you have children.

            Using your standard, Boston’s reaction to busing was understandable and appropriate.

            Being a liberal means supporting social justice even when it is not convenient for you. It does not mean you need to don a clice and take a vow of poverty.

          • witless chum

            They shouldn’t do any of those things, because they’re all mostly bullshit. As someone who went to a deeply shitty school I can assure you, it didn’t matter. I was better educated than people I went to college with who went to fancy suburban schools because my folks pushed me to be and managed to convince me that reading things was fun.

            Your class matters a fuckton more than your school.

  • snarkout

    When Raleigh came up with what seemed to be a functional and reasonably popular solution to school integration, rich dickbag Art Pope poured money into the Wake County school board elections to ensure it never happened again.

    • +1

      Fuckers. It was working. They made their school system worse so they could keep the races apart in school.

      • Stick

        And the really sad/interesting part of the story is that the ‘parent groups’ raising all of the ruckus were (for the most part) northern transplants. Damn Yankees in the local vernacular.

        • Do you mean the parents who supported the change were Yankees and the ones opposing it were locals, or do you mean the national groups that launched a fight there?

          • Stick

            Do you mean the parents who supported the change were Yankees and the ones opposing it were locals

            No. There were plenty of locals on board, but some of the key parents who helped to get the ‘parent groups’ going and agitating to keep junior close to home were northern transplants.

            Just speaking to the ubiquity of racist stupidity in our society.

  • I went to the Boston Public Schools from 1983–1996. So I missed the strife, and the white flight in the immediate aftermath. Getting bused to another neighborhood was just a fact of life for us.

    I can’t really imagine what it would have been like without mandatory busing, but I don’t think it will be good. Wasn’t it just recently that there was a new report showing that the disparity in wealth between blacks and whites has been steadily rising? Assuming that Boston isn’t some sort of bizarre outlier (which it doesn’t seem to be, from what I can see) this is just going to accelerate that trend. Richer and whiter neighborhoods will have better schools, and better schools will increase property values and price out minority populations.

    And any solutions that might get proposed are going to involve the magic of market-based approaches and crushing teachers unions. Feh.

  • SP

    I always equated Boston busing with METCO, which is still running (technically a volunteer program.) This changes Boston into a controlled choice plan, similar to Cambridge- they still have to diversify schools based on some criteria and you’re only guaranteed one of six schools you choose, it’s not just “go to the school nearest you” which would be awful for diversity.

  • Everyone who wants to bash Boston as racist talks about the busing crisis, just because their perspective gets warped by that one powerful photo. I think this is very unfair.

    The segregation in Boston public housing was far more long-lasting, and really gets underplayed in discussions of the city’s race relations.

    • efgoldman

      The segregation in Boston public housing was far more long-lasting

      This is true, but (a) it was of a piece with segregated neighborhoods and (b) not particularly limited to Boston, not at all.

      • But aren’t those both true of the anti-busing movement, too?

    • nixnutz

      My dad worked for the housing authority back then (meaning in the mid-70s busing/receivership period, not the later period you linked) and that was another mess where the judge probably meant well but his solution really didn’t work. I’m not clear actually how that 1988 situation came to be because Garrity had ordered them to do waiting lists that weren’t site-specific back in the 70s.

      So they had to offer the apartments basically in order from the least desirable. The problem though is that white families, not entirely irrationally, upon being offered those apartments would refuse them, they’d get bumped down to the bottom of the list again, the projects still didn’t get integrated, and in the meantime apartments in more desirable projects would sit vacant for months at a time and inevitably get vandalized. When my dad complained about this last to judge Garrity his response was to issue an order that the Housing Authority eliminate vandalism within 30 days.

      So yeah, same kind of shit show.

  • Bernard

    yes, busing didn’t work. chasing whites out to the suburbs killed the cities, the tax base to pay for cities’ needs. but whites were so afraid of blacks and still are. now their kids are inheriting the kleptocracy of “charter schools” and still blacks are stuck in a ghetto that is now the larger city.

    the size of the ghetto increased through forced busing. those whites who could move did. here in New Orleans, the city has gotten poorer. one suburb has the best public schools in the entire state. which says a whole lot for Louisiana, pretty soon we will be worse than Mississippi. quite a legacy.

    one judge who pushed integration here was named Skelly.
    lots of whites called him “Smelly.” not much difference between Boston and New Orleans. and forced busing helped the Republican capture the white vote. the Reagan Revolution that destroyed America via the Republican party’s take over of the Court system.

    thanks to busing we have Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and so forth. busing led to Nixon, Bush, and all those evil Republican Winners.

    Busing really changed America, and not for the good, in the long run. not to say i believe in racism, just saying the results of forced busing backfired more than any good intent,

    the best laid plans of mice and men.

  • James E. Powell

    Many people forget that the anti-busing hysteria in the northern cities was major fuel for the Republicans. It was the number one issue that created the Reagan Democrats, with hysteria about affirmative action being number two.

    Every one of them believed in the American Dream. But they definitely did not want blacks to be a part of it.

  • Breadbaker

    I tutored in Roxbury High in 1975-76. There were five white kids in the school. They were there because their parents let them decide if they wanted to go. All their neighbor kids were forbidden the choice.

    Stacked up in closets in the school were pristin unused textbooks for the kids who didn’t arrive. The black and Hispanic kids we had were nowhere near high school level proficiency in anything. One kid could barely write his name.

    I had one tutee who wanted to know about Africa. I searched the entire library for a map of Africa since the end of colonialism. There wasn’t one. Except for a few bookcases of contemporary books, most of the library was from the time when Roxbury High was Girls’ High in what was then a predominately Jewish neighborhood. If you wanted a book on 1940s deportment, they had plenty. If you wanted a book someone who actually attended the school could read, or would read, you were essentially out of luck.

  • Data Tutashkhia

    Yup, busing really did help Boston – to kill any hope of integration, and to boost racial tensions. Thank you, cadillac liberals. Certainly one doesn’t need to be a racist to object to being forced sending there child to the ghetto full of drugs and gangs.

    I lived there for a long time, and I don’t think I’d met many racists. Not even among those who moved to suburbs to avoid busing.

    There are, of course, liberal academics like Steven Pinker, but that’s a small minority. And they, of course, never resided in Boston proper in the first place.

    • Malaclypse

      And if this thread has taught us anything, it is that Data is someone we should all listen to on what is and is not racism.

      • Heck! Let’s bring over a key quote from Data:

        So, I’ll just say it again, in different words: a belief in inherent racial super- or inferiority – that is is what ‘racism’ to me. Acting on a real or perceived race-related correlations, is not.

        You don’t need *accurate* perceptions of race-related correlations! You just need the perception of coorelation! If you find this tricky to enact, please just go to that thread and see how Data responds to evidence contrary to his perceptions of racial inferiority, whoops, racial “correlations” that happy to coincide exactly with racist beliefs. Cause, man, y’know ghettos are scaaaaaaary.

        With utmost sincerity and sorrow,
        Bijan “The charlatan or was it thin skinned bully” Parsia.

        • Data Tutashkhia

          Of course you don’t need accurate perceptions. “Perceptions” is just an explanation why people, who don’t believe in biological racial inferiority, may act that way. They could get their perception from the media, for example, and it could be inaccurate; it doesn’t matter. They are either racist or not.

          Is this so complicated?

          • Malaclypse

            They are either racist or not.

            And, in your case, you are.

            Is this so complicated?

            No. Yet you keep fucking this particular walrus anyway.

          • Of course you don’t need accurate perceptions. “Perceptions” is just an explanation why people, who don’t believe in biological racial inferiority, may act that way.

            Are you now conceding that acting on racial profiling is (or may be) acting as a racist would? If so, why do you think it’s wrong to label them as racist or racist in action?

            They could get their perception from the media, for example, and it could be inaccurate; it doesn’t matter.

            What if they defend the inaccuracy? E.g., what if they engage in epistemic tricks to keep themselves from drawing the correct conclusions about their “perceptions”? At any point, do they become culpable?

            They are either racist or not.

            By which you mean that they harbour explicit, gauche, particularly obviously false beliefs. Merely believing that ghettos are scary or that black people are so likely to be thieves that it’s reasonable to assault them on spec, etc. is perfectly hunky dory?

            Well, that’s rather convenient for you. But this is just the anti-racism is the real racism/only poor folks are racist line. Heck, a southern slaveholder wouldn’t count as racist on your view if he sincerely believed that his slavers weren’t inherently or biologically inferior, but it would take many generations of slavery before they worked their way out of their transient inferiority.

            Which is pretty clearly an obvious reducito of your view.

            • Data Tutashkhia

              “now conceding”? That’s the whole point. What did you think we were talking about all that time?

              why do you think it’s wrong to label them as racist or racist in action?

              Why do think it’s right to label them as racist if they are not?

              At any point, do they become culpable?

              At no point. Why is it any of your business?

              Merely believing that ghettos are scary or that black people are so likely to be thieves that it’s reasonable to assault them on spec, etc. is perfectly hunky dory?

              It’s not reasonable to assault anybody, any race, that’s a crime. The rest is just a human condition. Prevailing attitudes change, but slowly. Under the right conditions (a socioeconomic system without ghettos and extreme poverty), it could take a couple of generations.

              Heck, a southern slaveholder wouldn’t count as racist on your view if he sincerely believed that his slavers weren’t inherently or biologically inferior

              Correct. Should a southern slaveholder be also a racist, necessarily?

              • Malaclypse

                Should a southern slaveholder be also a racist, necessarily?

                When you find yourself questioning the racism of southern slaveholders, it is perhaps time to question the path your life has taken.

        • Data Tutashkhia

          …oh, btw, about you being a charlatan. This busing thing is exactly what I was talking about. You (or people like you) know how cure social ills, yeah? forced busing was your prescription, right? Well, the results are out.

          • Malaclypse

            Well, the results are out.

            They are? You have studies? Links? Or is this your perceptions telling you that busing, like black folks, are bad?

            • Remember, you can’t generalize from nationwide stats to New York (at ALL) but you can generalize from a particular failure to the failure of all attempts to mitigate or eradicate racism!

              It’s just common sense! Real common sense. Like that of the Good People.

          • …oh, btw, about you my being a charlatan.

            Fixed that for you!

            This busing thing is exactly what I was talking about.

            I had what to do with busing exactly (other than experiencing a mild form of it)?

            You (or people like you) know how cure social ills, yeah?

            Where did I say or intimate this?

            forced busing was your prescription, right?

            Replaying old, and false, hits?

            In fact, by telling these people that they are racists and insisting that they are the source of the problem, you, I believe, make it worse. This is a malpractice, and you, I’m sorry to say, are a charlatan.

            As I pointed out, neither Coates nor I claimed that the deli owner was the source of the problem or, indeed, did either of us tell them that they were racist.

            I believe in accurate assessment. If something is racist, I’d like to know and know how to determine it. I’d also like to know what sustains it and how its harms may be mitigated and its existence ultimately eradicated. I’ve no illusion that this is straightforward or easy or without cost.

            However, I also try very hard not to attribute to people views they’ve not articulated. That might be a good first step for you! Then you can try learning some statistics.

            • Data Tutashkhia

              As I pointed out, neither Coates nor I claimed that the deli owner was the source of the problem or, indeed, did either of us tell them that they were racist.

              Tell them? Are you saying it’s unlikely that they will ever find out what you and your ilk think of them and say about them? I’m not that optimistic.

              • Malaclypse

                I’ve always wanted an ilk. Statistically, are ilks more likely to commit crimes?

                • It’s just common sense that there’s a correlation.

                • Data Tutashkhia

                  Darn, your “position” is sure hard to nail down, my friend. It’s very elusive. At times it appears that you don’t really have one.

                • If you’re referring to me, it’s pretty easy to determine my view on any given question: ask.

                  I’ve certainly not denied anything that I’ve said directly or indirectly (unlike your “I’m not talking about morality” schtick).

                  That is, of course, different than allowing you to project views upon me so you might then condem me for them.

                  Are you getting tired? Your gyrations are getting ever weaker and sadder.

              • Yes I think it’s unlikely that the deli owner will read this thread.

                Even if they did, it’s clear that I’ve articulated enough of my position that they’d find used food for thought or they’d be like you and hopeless no matter what I did.

                It’s still the case that you are knowingly falsely attributed views to me and then condemning me for holding those views I don’t have and are not implied or even suggested by what I wrote. This is not a surprising dishonesty on your part since its part and parcel of the racism denialist (and thus racist) line to 1) try to define racism away and then 2) try to tar antiracists as, we’ll, charlatan’s, hucksters, or the real source of the problem. You’ve so classically fit this patten that there’s really little room to attribute good will to you.

                You can always step back. When you find yourself repeating lying about what people said when what they said is right there for you to read, it’s time to reconsider. Similarly, as Mal points out, you just defended southern salve owners as not racist. At that point, you’ve landed in a pile of hoods and need to dig your way out.

                • Data Tutashkhia

                  Even if they did, it’s clear that I’ve articulated enough of my position that they’d find used food for thought or they’d be like you and hopeless no matter what I did.

                  Right, you’re so morally superior. Just based on this: a black guy got frisked in a deli! you already know everything there is to know of what happened there, and everything that’s in shopkeeper’s head. And the verdict is: guilty.

                  No wonder ‘liberal’ has become a swear word.

                • Right, you’re so morally superior.

                  It’s kind of you to say so, but I’ve neither asserted nor implied this. Epistemically or argumentatively superior to you, I’ll concede easily.

                  Just based on this: a black guy got frisked in a deli! you already know everything there is to know of what happened there, and everything that’s in shopkeeper’s head.

                  Interestingly, this is again not a position I’ve articulated or implied. Nor did Coates. Which was the key point of his essay. Which you missed or ignored from the beginning.

                  And the verdict is: guilty.

                  It’s clear, on the facts of the report, that the clerk was guilty of assault. So that seems true. What exactly the mental state of the clerk or the shopkeeper is completely irrelevant to Coates’ point. Which you don’t address ever. I have extensively argued that typical racial profiling in our society is part of institutional racism and should be faced as such. The precise implications for any given individual is something which always needs to be considered carefully.

                  You, on the other hand, have given sufficient evidence in this threat that I’m pretty comfortable judging you as straight up racist. As you can see, I’m equally comfortable calling you out as such. I’m under no illusion that my pointing out your systemic and quite virulent racism will have any salutary effect on you, however gently put. After all, pointing out your easy-to-correct misrepresentations and outright falsehoods has not caused you to retract a one or to try better.

                  I find it unfortunate that you are so deeply committed to your racism. it’s hard to see that you’ll ever get out of it without first breaking down your ideological barricades that keep you from acknowledging it.

                  No wonder ‘liberal’ has become a swear word.

                  …among those who wish to excuse their own bad behavior, sure.

                  You’ve made quite a few assertions about my mental state that were either unsupported by or outright contradicted by what I’ve written in order to make false, highly negative accusations about me. So, we’re back to blatant projection? That didn’t work so well for you before.

          • sibusisodan

            …oh, btw, about you being a charlatan. This busing thing is exactly what I was talking about.

            When you say ‘exactly’ do you mean it in a ‘central to my point’ kinda way?

    • I lived there for a long time, and I don’t think I’d met many racists.

      I believe you! You don’t think that.

      • Data Tutashkhia

        Of course you do, why would I lie?

        Our perceptions aside, is it still your contention that forced busing in Boston was a sane, prudent, reasonable, justified government action? Just curious.

        • Malaclypse

          Data is a good person.

        • Anonymous

          In hindsight, perhaps it wasn’t sensible policy.

          That said, how else were they supposed to solve segregation?

          • Anonymous

            Not that I really believe you care about that.

            Also, when anyone uses the phrase “forced busing”, that’s usually a bad sign.

            • Scott Lemieux

              when anyone uses the phrase “forced busing” that’s usually a bad sign

              This. I’m equally offended by “forced schooling,” and the fact that one has to drive to said forced schooling on “forced roads.”

              • Data Tutashkhia

                Jeez. Is this really the level we have to communicate at? Let’s call it the ‘glorious people’s democratic busing’, if that’s the issue.

                • Anonymous

                  No, the issue is that a supposed “Marxist” is talking like a goddam libertarian because he doesn’t like busing.

                • How about just ‘busing?’

                  You introduced the base-stealing adjectives, Data. You don’t get to make some up and attribute them to Scott after you do that.

                • Data Tutashkhia

                  I say ‘forced busing’ because forcing is the problem, not busing. Obviously. Had they just provided buses for kids to go to the school in Roxbury when they and their parents wanted to do so, that’d be perfectly fine.

                  I’m no language expert, so if ‘busing’ is the noun that describes this phenomenon with all the relevant details, then I stand corrected. Though, what’s the big deal? How could one be “offended” by it? That seems blown way out of proportion.

              • Anonymous

                1. Yet again, all law is based on force to some degree. To assert that a law is illegitimate because it uses force is to implicitly undermine the whole basis of the law. You have not explained why these kinds of busing programs are more illegitimate than requiring children to get an education, or requiring people to pay taxes, or requiring divorced parents to pay child support, all of which may be done against the wishes of those affected. While I agree that there are areas where the use of force is not legitimate, you have yet to explain why this is one of them.

                2.The parents effected by this plan still had options. They could enroll their kids in private schools, or they could move out of the city. Many parents did not have the resources to pursue those options, which meant that this plan was easy for the middle-class and the wealthy to get around, but harder for the poor to do so. This was one of the problems with the plan, and with busing more generally. Nonetheless, they were not literally frog-marched into schools, which is the impression the phrase “forced busing” creates.

                3. Again, I actually agree with you that the busing plan was bad policy. The problem is not that you assert that busing was counterproductive, or that it raised racial tensions, or that it pitted poor blacks against poor whites, all of which I largely agree with. The problem is that you assert it was comparable to the human rights abuses in the Eastern Bloc. This is hyperbolic and ridiculous. Busing was bad policy, but it is not comparable to torturing and murdering dissidents or sending people to gulags or work camps in Siberia.These things occurred routinely in the Communist world. The number of people killed by those regimes is hotly debated, and I really don’t want to get into it, but almost all historians agree that it was in the millions.

                4. I have to ask whether you are really aware of the sheer scale of human rights abuses in the Communist world. Given this thread, I highly doubt it. I agree that corporations and the wealthy have far too much influence over our national life. I also agree that capitalism has many problematic tendencies, such as a tendency to exploit workers. Nonetheless, to argue that what a waitress at Denny’s goes through, and what Vaclav Havel went through, are exactly the same, is ridiculous. Either you are genuinely unaware of what happened in the Communist world, despite claiming to come from there, or you are deliberately downplaying and minimizing what actually occurred there. Neither reflects well on you.

                5. While I agree that busing was bad policy, some of the arguments you make against it are dubious, coming from you. You argued that busing “killed any hope of integration”. I would be more convinced by this argument if there was any indication that you actually realize segregation was a problem.

                6. On the subject of the ghetto: I have a reasonably serious disability that prevents me from driving, so I have to take public transit to work. Every time I commute, I go through some of the poorest, most crime-ridden neighborhoods in LA: Compton, Willowbrook, South Central. Often, I have to change buses in the middle of very bad neighborhoods. I have been doing this for four or five years. Not once have I been mugged. Furthermore, the crime rate in those areas, while still very high, has actually gone down for some time. I don’t mean to minimize the problem. Those neighborhoods have numerous problems, and can be quite dangerous. I would not walk through them in the middle of the night, for instance. Those living in them face numerous obstacles, and poverty there is widespread. Nonetheless, the popular perception of them is often worse than the reality.

                7. I’ve noticed this is a pattern with you. You make ridiculous, often asinine statements, and then act surprised when people take offense. I find this rather strange. Either you are incredibly clueless, or you are deliberately pushing people’s buttons. This is really the only conclusion I can draw.

          • Data Tutashkhia

            Who the hell is “they”? Benevolent overlords of the Bostonian working- and underclass, from Dover and Lexington?

            You know, I came there from a communist country. Heard good things about democracy, on the radio: Voice of America, The Free Europe, the BBC in Russian. When I got there and realized what’s going on with that busing (it wasn’t forced, it was volunteered, is that what you think? Sorry, it was forced, very much so.), it was a big surprise. Sounded like exactly what the Soviets would do, to solve their social problems. So much for democracy. But you’re right, it didn’t affect me much.

            • Malaclypse

              Shorter Data: democracy means never needing to associate with negroes.

              PS I AM NOT A RACIST CRANK!

            • Anonymous

              A few things

              1. Look, force, at some level, is nessecary for a government to even function. Do you think taxation should be voluntary, and that taxes are “theft” as I have heard some people say? Or are you willing to acknowledge this? The whole point of the phrase “forced busing” is to make it sound like its some kind of horrific human rights abuse that black kids were being bused to white schools.

              2. Do you think that desegregation laws and the Civil Rights Act were bad because they “forced” restaurants and stores to serve black people? Because that’s the same logic you’re using here.

              3. I find it interesting that you think busing was a horrible abusive policy, and yet you apparently see no problem with a white store owner forcibly searching a black man, whom he suspected of theft on no other grounds than that he was black. Your priorities are problematic, to put it mildly.

              4. Busing was intended to solve the problem of school segregation, which several districts were deliberately ignoring decades after Brown. You have shown no indication that you actually regard any racial issues as serious, so I’m sure you will ignore the fact that this segregation was incredibly damaging to blacks.

              5. While the busing plan was problematic, the opposition to it behaved abominably. They used some of the nastiest rhetoric imaginable. They threw rock sand stones at buses They started a goddamn race riot, where whites attacked blacks. Haven’t you seen the picture of the man attempting to stab a black person with an American Flag? For God’s sake, the slogan of a large part of the movement was “Bus the n*****s back to Africa”. While I understand why there was so much opposition to busing, there is no call to behave like this. You have not even addressed this, which makes me believe you really don’t care at all about the discrimination and racism that blacks experienced.

              6. While busing was a flawed policy, to compare it with human rights abuses in the Communist world is fucking cretinous.

              7. I actually agree with you that the busing plan was flawed and counterproductive. Yet, throughout this thread, you have been talking about race in such an offensive manner that you have managed to completely alienate me. Think about that.

              • Anonymous

                Sorry about the typos, but I think the point stands.

                • Malaclypse

                  That was way better than Data the Racist deserved. Well said.

              • Data Tutashkhia

                Look, force, at some level, is nessecary for a government to even function.

                Sure. The North Korean government agrees with it too. And they too have ideas how to make life harmonious for the North Koreans. We are only talking about the degree here.

                2. Do you think that desegregation laws and the Civil Rights Act were bad because they “forced” restaurants and stores to serve black people?

                Why “forced”, didn’t they force? Well, it was, and still is, to some extent, a very controversial part. But busing seems more coercive, and it failed, made things worse.

                But even if it didn’t: in some cases ends do justify the means, but there is a limit. Maybe your limit is higher than mine.

                you apparently see no problem with a white store owner forcibly searching a black man, whom he suspected of theft on no other grounds than that he was black

                I would equally object to any person of any race being forcibly searched for no reasons. They should pass a law against that. I bet they already have.

                You have shown no indication that you actually regard any racial issues as serious

                I believe the racial issues are a symptom of the underlying socioeconomic issues. To say “damaging to blacks” you need to consider blacks as different from whites. I don’t see any reason to do this. Any good reason, I should say. It’s not black vs white; poverty is poverty.

                the opposition to it behaved abominably

                It’s called ‘backlash’. This is how human beings react to this kind of thing.

                While busing was a flawed policy, to compare it with human rights abuses in the Communist world is fucking cretinous.

                I have to disagree. Social engineering, administered by a well-meaning government, all for your own good. Sending children somewhere, against the will of their parents, that seems especially problematic.

                you have been talking about race in such an offensive manner

                I didn’t say anything offensive. Don’t know what you’ve been reading. Maybe you should read it again.

                • Anonymous

                  d

                • sibusisodan

                  I didn’t say anything offensive

                  Well, at least you’re consistent: people acting in racist ways are not racists if they don’t perceive themselves as racists; you didn’t say anything offensive if you perceive yourself not to have said anything offensive.

                  There isn’t much going to cross the gap between your own perception and those of other people, is there?

                • Anonymous

                  Sure. The North Korean government agrees with it too. And they too have ideas how to make life harmonious for the North Koreans. We are only talking about the degree here.

                  Why “forced”, didn’t they force? Well, it was, and still is, to some extent, a very controversial part. But busing seems more coercive, and it failed, made things worse.

                  But even if it didn’t: in some cases ends do justify the means, but there is a limit. Maybe your limit is higher than mine.

                  1. You missed my point entirely. All laws are based on force. This is true for laws ranging from those against murder and rape, all the way down to traffic ordinances. The government does not ask nicely that you not murder, it forbids you from doing so, and hauls you off to jail if you do. You can argue that a given law uses too much force, or the wrong kind of force, or force on the wrong area, but you cannot argue that force qua force makes a law illegitimate without questioning the whole basis of the modern state. Even libertarians understand this, which is why they talk about “initiation of force”, and defend laws against rape and murder as responding to force. Unless you are an anarchist, which I doubt, it is ridiculous for you to use this argument. If busing is illegitimate because it uses force, then why are taxes, for example, any more legitimate?

                  2. You implicitly argue here that busing is wrong because it uses unjust means, and is too coercive. However, when tackling issues that you actually care about, you appear quite willing to use coercive means. In the other thread, for example, you argued for more coercive searches of rich people, to equalize their suffering with the poor. On threads in Crooked Timber, you have argued ina similar vein, and you once argued for a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism. You do not get to posture about the coercive evils of busing when you endorse far more authoritarian solutions to problems that you care about.

                  3. Busing failed in Boston. Busing failed in Louiville. Busing failed in most other places, but it is not true that busing failed everywhere. The plan in Charlotte, for instance, seems to have been working until it was killed off by Art Pope. Moreover, one reason for the failure of busing was that whites fought against it with everything in their power, including the use of violence. Yes, the plans were badly drawn and often elitist, but the resistance of whites to busing was a major factor in killing it. Furthermore, an avowed “Marxist” has a lot of gall to lecture other people on their failures, considering that Marxism failed almost everywhere it was tried.

                  I would equally object to any person of any race being forcibly searched for no reasons. They should pass a law against that. I bet they already have.

                  Which is why you spent the vast majority of your time on the other thread defending said store owner, making up every convcievable excuse for his behavior, and finally stating that the store owner was right to search him because A. he was wealthy, and B. Blacks are criminals. Sure. Right. Pull the other one.

                  I believe the racial issues are a symptom of the underlying socioeconomic issues. To say “damaging to blacks” you need to consider blacks as different from whites. I don’t see any reason to do this. Any good reason, I should say. It’s not black vs white; poverty is poverty.

                  Blacks were enslaved for 300 years. They were then subject to a virtual apartheid for another 100 years. Whites, even poor whites, had rights that blacks did not. Even now, blacks are still struggling to catch up to whites, and the average black income is much lower than the average white income. To completely ignore the different situations of blacks and whites is quite ridiculous. This is even more true historically. Being poor is very bad, but is not nearly as bad as being enslaved. Even given the current level of poverty and inequality the abolition of slavery and segregation was a great historical advance. Moreover, even well-off blacks face a serious amount of discrimination,. Racism, both individual and institutional, did not magically disapear when slavery or segregation ended. It is still widespread in certain parts of the country, however much you may delude yourself that it’s gone.

                  You are ignoring that class oppression, while a very important factor in this country,is not the only type of oppression there is! Racial discrimination is still very much present in this country and it needs to be fixed. To ignore this, because you are wedded to a 19th-century version of socialism, is to blind yourself to reality.

                  It’s called ‘backlash’. This is how human beings react to this kind of thing.

                  So according to you, busing is a human rights abuse comparable to the gulag, but throwing stones at children, screaming racial epithets, rioting, and beating and attempting to kill minorities is a perfectly legitimate and understandable way to react to the dire threat of black children attending white schools.

                  If you really believe this, you are a moral idiot of the highest order.

                  I have to disagree. Social engineering, administered by a well-meaning government, all for your own good. Sending children somewhere, against the will of their parents, that seems especially problematic.

                  1. “Social engineering” is a phrase used by people to describe policies they dislike. In American politics, it is more or less completely meaningless. It is amazing how a supposed leftist like yourself continually uses right wing code words.

                  2. See the above point about force. We require that kids get and education even if it’s against the wishes of the parent. We require that parents feed their kids, and not abuse them physically or mentally, even if they wish to do so. Are these legitimate? What makes these legitimate and not school busing?

                  3. Yet again, you are seriously comparing busing with the deliberate murder of millions of people that happened in the Communist world. I find it hard to believe you’re being serious here, rather than going for shock value, but if you are, there are three possibilities:

                  a. You are misguided/deluded about what happened in the Communist world.

                  b. You’re trying to overstate the awfulness of busing/ make it sound not just misguided but totalitarian.

                  c. You’re trying to downplay/minimize the crimes of the Eastern Bloc.

                  There is no other possibility.

                  I would bet on “b”, but given that you once argued on Crooked Timber that there was literally no difference between the Soviet Union and Thatcher’s Britain, I guess “c” is a possibility.

                  I didn’t say anything offensive. Don’t know what you’ve been reading. Maybe you should read it again.

                  Really. You don’t think you’ve said anything offensive. You don’t think that declaring that blacks have criminal tendencies, as you did in the other thread, is offensive. You don’t think that comparing busing to Soviet human rights abuses is offensive. You don’t think that defending the improper search of a black man by saying “he could have been drunk”, and pointing to the supposed criminality of blacks is offensive. You don’t think that minimizing and deriding almost every claim of racism while defending the poisonous stereotyping of blacks is offensive. You don’t think that stating that someone who actually notices and opposes racism against minorities is a “charlatan” is offensive.

                  There are only two possibilities. You are either being willfully obtuse, or you are a world class imbecile.

                  I know that you probably believe yourself to be socially concerned. Perhaps you even see yourself as a revolutionary, as the savior of the downtrodden. You are deluding yourself. You are so cocooned in your own privilege, so convinced that you have all the answers, that you mock and deride those who actually are fighting for a better world. You dismiss any talk of racism, and ignore all racial problems because you “know”, as a privileged “leftist”, that those problems don’t exist. Furthermore, you are so filled with self-regard that you cannot bear to hear that you might be at fault.

                  I have one thing to say to you.

                  Grow up.

                • Malaclypse

                  Comments like that are why I wish you would adopt a nym. Nicely said.

                • Data Tutashkhia

                  Sorry, Anon, there’s too much there, and none of it makes any sense, so let’s leave at that. You got the last word, and I hope you enjoyed typing all that.

                  Just one thing, if I may: you really do get offended from reading me saying that some guy, suspected of shoplifting, could’ve been drunk – because that guy has dark skin? I’ll be damned. You made my day. This blog is a beautiful thing.

                • Let me also cheer on Anonymous. Truly great comments.

                  Then Data writes:

                  You got the last word, and I hope you enjoyed typing all that….Just one thing, if I may:

                  I guess you can’t help refuting yourself even on simple matters.

        • is it still your contention that forced busing in Boston was a sane, prudent, reasonable, justified government action?

          What do you mean “still?”

          And why are you asking me about busing, as if it has anything to do with whether you’ve met racists in Boston?

          Are you telling me that it isn’t possible for people to be racists and oppose busing?

          • Data Tutashkhia

            Naturally, a racist would oppose busing. Well, unless he or she was hoping that it’ll lead to some race-war, or something. It’s hard to tell.

            I’m asking you about busing because this thread is about busing. My casual observations about Bostonians are not really all that important.

            • Naturally, a racist would oppose busing.

              But if someone comes up with another excuse, you rule out the possibility that they are racist.

              This is how you end up believing you have never met a racist in Boston.

              • Data Tutashkhia

                Joe. If someone tells me (not necessarily in these words) that the blacks (or the Arabs, that one I heard a lot) are biologically inferior, then I know he or she is a racist. Otherwise, I don’t have a reason.

                I was home, in eastern Mass recently, and an acquaintance was complaining that a black guy moved into the next house down the street, in the suburbs. I said: so what? He said: ‘oh, I’m afraid there will be drugs, loud parties, and shit like that.’

                And this is usually the extent of it, on the worst side.

                Now, you’re right, I have no proof that the guy isn’t a real racist, but why would I assume it?

                In fact, I’d sooner suspect a lot of people here (not you, of course); y’know, those who protest too much and are eager to accuse, of being racists, if only subconsciously. This is how it shows, usually: projection, subconscious projection.

  • Halloween Jack

    A good book on Southie in general, and the busing riots in particular, is All Souls. It really gets into the mindset of people who are steeped in the “poor but proud” mindset from birth and insist that they’re better than the urban blacks that they try to segregate themselves from, while blocking out the number of ways in which they’re just as bad off, if not worse.

    • MAJeff

      Whiteness is a pathology.

      • I have been to the hospital here numerous times and none of the physicians have ever commented on my white skin as being a symptom of any disease.

  • fcc

    Busing was never the issue, integration was. I lived a block away from Dorchester high and the local white kids were always bused out to Southie. Garrity put a stop to that nonsense and the local whites went (literally) ballistic.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, Anon, there’s too much there, and none of it makes any sense, so let’s leave at that. You got the last word, and I hope you enjoyed typing all that.

    Thanks. I’m getting rather tired of this too.

    I notice, however, that you always seem to come here, make some obnoxious remark, get your butt kicked in an argument, flounce off, and then return a few days or weeks later as if nothing happened.

    I rather hope you will stay away for longer this time.

    • While you may have gotten tired of it, I really enjoyed your comments.

      I think I might just keep posting some of Data’s more naked racist quotes from now on in reply to him. It’s clear at this point that there is no intent to engage or reflect of their part.

  • nimo.Com.Pl

    Specifically what makes you very happy when the person are
    doing understand it? Evacuation orders in Port Deposit is carrying kept most guests out of city.

It is main inner container footer text