Erika D Smith
Erika D. Smith is a hip young woman of color at the Indianapolis Star. She’s taken the time out of her vibrant multicultural day to enrich us colorless and cultureless people of Indianapolis with some coaching on how to think and speak correctly. Her article last week, Indy: diverse, but still divided, explicitly and directly frames Whiteness as one of Indy’s foremost problems and termination of overwhelmingly White areas of the city as the final solution to the Whiteness Problem…
A concerted effort to keep blacks from living in certain areas of the city, such as north of 38th Street, lasted into the 1970s as well.
“When blacks moved into neighborhoods,” Moore said, “for-sale signs would go up all over the neighborhood.”
[She unwittingly contradicted herself, asserting that Whites were trying to keep Blacks out of neighborhoods by pointing out that Whites rolled over and forfeited those neighborhoods without a peep.]
As a result, areas of Indianapolis developed along lines of segregation. And unlike in many other Midwestern cities, those patterns remain and aren’t questioned.
[Perhaps that's why we don't have race riots?]
The Southside, for example, is still one of the least-diverse areas of the city, according to census data.
In most of Decatur, Perry and Franklin townships, more than 75 percent of the population is white, and the chance of living near someone of a different race or ethnicity is 35 percent or less, according to a statistical analysis of census data.
[Given that those least diverse townships are the wealthiest and safest, I'm not sure we should follow along with her presumption that lacking diversity is a bad thing.]
And how do we solve the Whiteness Problem, the fact that some parts of Indianapolis are still pretty much White? Do we persuade Whites to move into Black neighborhoods? Do we offer them some incentives or assure them that it’s safe to be surrounded by Blacks and Mexicans? Chillingly, Erika cuts to the chase and proposes the use of force to disintegrate White neighborhoods.
Still, there are only a handful of neighborhoods in all of Indianapolis where your likelihood of living near someone of a different race or ethnicity is higher than 75 percent, and all of those areas are in Wayne Township.
We aren’t the most segregated city in the country. Detroit has that distinction, according to a new report, “The Persistence of Segregation in the Metropolis,” by Brown University’s John Logan and Florida State University’s Brian Stults.
But unlike the nation’s most segregated cities, there are few things in Indianapolis that actually force us to integrate on a daily basis. There’s no mass transit system, for example, that’s used equally by people of all races and all income levels.
So when we talk about creating a city that’s truly inclusive, where does this leave us? How can we say we’re welcoming to people of different races and ethnicities if our city is still segregated in some respects?
[What's the added value for residents of Indianapolis in welcoming people of different races and ethnicities? You already confirmed that we're a friendly bunch. Why should Indy discriminate against White people in its outreach efforts?]
Imagine an inversion, one where I move to Japan and start writing articles for the local paper in which I lament the existence of overwhelmingly Japanese neighborhoods and speculate on ways to force them to associate with me and transfer their wealth, power, and communities over to me. They would, of course, recognize my anti-Japanese agenda for what it is and blow me off, confidently going about being Japanese in their Japanese neighborhoods and communities. Of course, if Japanese families kept putting up for-sale signs every time I moved somewhere, I would take a hint.
We can’t win for losing with Erika, even getting called out for failing to crash her Black Expo: “Major events such as Indiana Black Expo and the Circle City Classic attract many blacks but few whites.” Of course, this is coming from a woman who would recoil in horror at the thought of a White Expo that celebrated White culture and promoted White empowerment.
The problem, according to Erika, is that White people aren’t doing enough to include and empower her. The solution, according to Erika, is more communication.
How do we become a city that’s not merely diverse, but integrated?
First, we need to be willing to have uncomfortable discussions.
No, she’s not talking about discussing the gross disparities in crime rates between the different groups. she’s not talking about discussing how forcing different groups together is virtually always a recipe for conflicted and alienated communities. She’s not talking about how Whites in Indianapolis stand to lose their wealth, safety, jobs, and schools if she gets her way. These data-driven and fact-oriented discussions aren’t what Erika has in mind.
Her idea of a “conversation about race” is just like Eric Holder’s – one where she exploits her control of the conversation to attack Whites. Eric Holder feigned interest in Americans having a conversation about race, even calling us out as “a nation of cowards” for having failed to do so. The terms of his “conversation” were that Whites weren’t actually supposed to defend themselves or the right of their communities to exist. Whites were supposed to listen to him lecture, with an occasional confession of “racism” or “prejudice” and plenty of apologies and pledges to submit to the anti-White pogrom in the future.
For her, conversation is indoctrination, and progress is progressing away from Whiteness.
Making progress will require upsetting some people. It will require questioning some of our long-held stereotypes. And above all, it will require facing the truth.
You want the truth, Erika? You can’t handle the truth! Don’t bother responding truthfully about race, because the true answer is the wrong answer: I asked, and your answers about race aren’t encouraging.
How condescending can this woman be?
To her credit, she concludes her follow-up article with an exhortation from one respondent for both sides to be open to serious discussion.
“If a white person is willing to admit racial views and stereotypes and try to talk about what contributes to them, then others have to be willing to let go of the race card and hear about behaviors that, socially, contribute to racial stereotypes. . . . Everyone will have to be vulnerable and forgo the right to be offended for the sake of meaningful dialogue and real growth.”
We at Hoosier Nation couldn’t agree more. I’ll kick it off with some questions for Erika D. Smith…
1. Do you believe that there’s a violent crime problem in Indy’s Black community? If so, do you believe it’s understandable that Whites would not wish to integrate with them until that problem’s resolved?
2. Do you believe that Whites should be allowed to opt out of diversity by taking the minimal steps necessary to retain demographic and political majorities in their communities?
3. Do you believe it’s appropriate for non-Whites to have advocacy groups that stand up for their communities? Do you believe it’s appropriate for Whites to have advocacy groups like Hoosier Nation that stand up for their communities?
4. Do you believe it’s appropriate to continue framing the Brandon Johnson incident as an example of police brutality despite mounting evidence that the officers were innocent of brutality?
5. Do you believe that the Indianapolis Star’s chorus of pro-Black and pro-Hispanic voices would benefit from the inclusion of a pro-White voice?
Update:
Shortly after posting this, I emailed these five questions to Erika with the assumption that she was being honest about wanting to have a mature dialogue about race, one where neither side can dictate the terms of the discussion or feign offense and stomp away. Perhaps she hasn’t had time to respond just yet, as it’s unthinkable that she would call Indy’s White people out like this, then fail to follow up when we respond. We’re patient, and will continue sitting right here waiting for a response. Until either she or some other columnist with the Indianapolis Star answers our five questions, we’ll be waiting…
Conversation Counter
Great article, Matt. I live in Perry township and I have ONE white neighbour. Five years ago, all of my neighbours here were white. I can’t say the area has been better off for the rapid diversification…
Jaenelle,
If you’re too bigoted/White to get it, I’ll spell it out for you:
1. It’s no longer safe to go outside, so you’re indoors all day, which has better climate control.
2. Your neighbors don’t speak English, so they wouldn’t know how to borrow milk or eggs from you, which saves you money.
3. Even if they do speak English, they’re lactose-intolerant and keep chickens in their apartments, so they’re unlikely to ask for milk or eggs, anyway.
4. You’re more likely to roll your windows up to guard from rampant theft, which also means you’re less likely to end up with rain in your car’s interior.
5. There are more Payday Loan and Pawn Shops nearby.
6. Neighborhood males are more inclined to compliment your appearance, often loudly and explicitly, improving your self-esteem.
7. Street drugs are more affordable and accessible.
8. Slavery happened somewhere else over a century ago, and giving up the safety and fellowship you previously enjoyed in your neighborhood is an important first step in the life-long process of saying you’re sorry.
9. Replacing White people is its own reward, a moral imperative that need not be explained to bigoted nazi klan white trash racists who don’t realize yet that the future simply doesn’t include them.
10. Your local newspaper, your church’s leadership, your political party’s leadership, and your federal government know what’s best for the world, and that’s more of them and less of you. The neighborhood is better off, it’s just not better off for you. You are what’s wrong with the neighborhood, Whitey.
Making progress will require upsetting some PC people. It will require questioning some of their long-held stereotypes. And above all, it will require them to face the truth which is…
Gentrification is always begun by childless singles and homosexuals because no sane person wants to live near people who will stab their children.
Until that truth is part of the “conversation” then said conversation is simply anti-white race-baiting.
The Indy Star would never tolerate a White person spouting off simliar anti-black sentiments.
Why doesn’t the Star fire Erika D. Smith ?
I posted this locally and there is an outcry against Erika smith.
So it’s not like she or her ideals are welcomed, intact we might see a rise in supporters from her. I say don’t fire her, turn that mic up.
Nick, Having read the comments on the Star article, I think you may have a point.
It seems White people are no longer intimidated by being labeled “racist.”
Great article. Matt, you are a real pioneer in getting this conversation going with the anti-whites on a civil basis and keeping it civil,, at least on our side. We can’t control whether the other side is civil or not, and it doesn’t really matter. What matters is our standard of behavior,, and the level of intelligence of our discourse. You are accomplishing something basically unprecedented for us — WN 2.0. I remember WN 1.0 and it was dysfunctional and self defeating. What you are doing here is making true progress and showing the rest of us how it’s done.
Maybe you should send her a reminder and let her know we are still waiting to have this “conversation” that she proposes. Maybe she just forgot.
Good point, Jaenelle. We’ve all been guilty of overlooking emails we intended to respond to. I just sent a follow-up email…
Dear Mrs. Smith,
11 days ago, I sent the email shown below, directing you to a page where I take you up on your offer to discuss racial issues with you.
I have yet to receive a response, perhaps because you overlooked the email (anybody’s mistake) or because it was an imposition to require you to go to a website you’ve never been to before to find my questions.
Here they are…
I will give you the benefit of the doubt in refraining from jumping to the conclusion that you’re deliberately exploiting your position at the Indianapolis Star to exclude those you strongly disagree with from inclusion in the debate. At the very least, an email explaining why you will not be answering our conversation questions would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Matt Parrott