Here are two different articles reporting on the same story, which revolves around a Cincinnati landlord who posted a “White Only” sign on her Duplex Pool over the summer, after a visiting African American Teenage child's hair product apparently made the water “Cloudy”. The parents of the child filed a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, and found the sign to be racist and discriminatory.
The CBS/AP Article seems to be a more straight forward account of the story while The ABC News article focuses more on the landlord's intent of it being for “decoration”.
The article goes back and forth with the Landlord Jaime Hein claiming:
“I'm not a bad person... I don't have problem with race at all. It's a historical sign... Everybody has to ask before getting in my pool... I have never said anything to that child... If I have to stick up for my white rights, I have to stick up for my white rights. It goes both ways.”
The father of the child Michael Gunn who was a tenant of Ms. Hein's property claims he previously “had unrestricted access to the pool area” and also had this to say.
“We invited my daughter, who is African-American , to visit and swim in the pool for the Memorial Day weekend... The owner Jamie Hein accused my daughter of making the pool cloudy because she used chemicals in her hair Days later, she posted a sign on the gate to the pool which reads “Public Swimming Pool White Only””.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57358203/ohio-panel-rules-whites-only-pool-sign-racist/
I first read about this incident on Huffington Post, and of course I checked the comments people post in response. A lot of the comments made me feel agitated because people were missing the point. If the people commenting weren't being racist themselves, or making counter accusations of racism, they were commenting on the issue of chemicals in the pool, and whether or not she should have just posted a sign saying no hair products in the pool. I worked as a life guard at a pool for five years. I can tell you from first hand experience, the harshest chemicals that go into a pool is the chlorine which gets pumped into it to keep it clean. The only things people really need to be worried about when it comes to substances entering a pool is bodily fluids (such as blood, urine, vomit, and feces). What I am trying to say here is that Jamie Hein is completely out of line for making such a statement, and is being racist. The sign reinforces said racism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/white-only-pool-sign-ruling-upheld_n_1202846.html
This woman may have been "protecting her rights as a white person" but it is against the law to do so by discriminating by use of race to achieve that end. She can claim anything she wants as the reason for re-using a "historic" sign, but it is what it is.....just blatant racism! I imagine if one checked into her rent records and looked a little harder into her other practices, we would find more of the same type of behavior. This doesn't develop overnight and it leaves even slower.
ReplyDeleteThe sign, no matter the intent, was discriminatory and very disrespectful to the people in her living community not just the little girl and her family. However, this woman has more than likely tainted the image of social equality in the mind of this little girl who now will have a seared mindset that she can't enjoy the same things as her white counterparts simply because she uses chemicals in her hair. The history behind the sign as an excuse is just simply a crutch because the intent of the historic element of the sign is blatant racism. Too often people use the notion of I'm not a racist or I didn't mean it like that to get them off of the hook. I am glad that in this situation this family stood up for their rights as well as the rights of this little girl who now has to deal with the topic of racism at such a young age when racism is supposedly becoming non-existent.
ReplyDeleteI read about this incident a few days ago. It is somewhat shocking. I say somewhat shocking because it is covert racism reminiscent of the Jim Crow Era, but at the same time, I've heard of covert acts of racism sparingly in recent news reports. The landlord's racist intentions are obvious and her explanations for displaying the sign are unjustifiable. She is quoting saying the sign was an antique given to her by a friend, while at the same time saying she must "protect her assets" and "stick up for her white rights". It's obvious that the sign was used to promote her racist ideologies. If it were simply about hair chemicals, she could have displayed a sign that read "please shower before entering the pool", as I've seen displayed in many pool venues. It's unfortunate that the young lady was exposed to this kind of oppression. Who knows how many other children internalized the message of the sign. For children of all races, a sign promoting this racial bigotry is detrimental. One group it directly oppresses and the other group it introduces and/or reinforces oppressive ideologies.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: I meant overt racism.
DeleteCome on this is crazy. It's a "historical" sign. That's stretching. I'm sure many of us know the Applebees (as well as many other restaurants) chose to decorate with tone of unique signs and other historical artifacts. If they decided to add a whites only sign to their wall there would be an uproar. So why is it ok for her. I really agree with Ms. Peoples. There is a child involved here, you have to think about the innocent party here. You know what. I take that back, this story involves 2 children.
Delete