I sheepishly agree with Robin Garwood that "this topic less than
narrowly focused on Minneapolis?"
If I wanted to justify it I would say that Minneapolis politics is, in
my opinion, heavily into identity politics. Many don't see it. But
then, as was said in the '60's: "I don't know who discovered water but I
know it wasn't the fish."
I've sent an email to Rosalind with some more thoughts on identity
politics but I will refrain from posting it here. I'll send a copy to
anyone who wants.
I would suggest that one problem in this city is we don't talk about
this stuff. We are polite, we sprout trite platitudes, and we sweep
under the rug the suspicions and distrust on all sides. I suspect it's
out of fear of conflict and or hurting feelings or showing some real
emotions. Well news: that isn't going to get real communications
going.
When I was on a Mayor/City Council/Police Department-sponsored "Citizens
Council of Police Community Relations" in Minneapolis in the early 90's
a reporter who had moved from Ohio told us that in Ohio they had X's and
Y's and Z's, and that there were conflicts, but that it was out on the
surface and they talked about it and worked through things. The
reporter contrasted that to here where, he said, we are polite but don't
solve things.
We should be having meeting with diverse audiences debating the pro's
and con's, the benefits and the damages, of identity politics (or
race-based or gender-based, or whatever) And talk about our concerns
about each other so far as it relates to items on the public policy
agenda. Such discussion has to be open to non-politically correct
statements, and be done in good faith and with cutting others some
slack. You can't really get down and hear what's on people's minds if
one subagenda is playing "gotcha."
I'll volunteer to help put something together, if a diverse enough group
of volunteers offer to help. (starting after Feb 26).
BTW, I once sat through a 45 minute (at least) discussion at a DFL
Central Committee (in Minneapolis) on the topic of the wording of the
Affirmative Action statement at the beginning of caucuses. You wouldn't
believe the nuances we got into ("do we say 'Spanish-surnamed' or
'Hispanic,' and don't include the Cubans because they are all
rich...?") I finally got up and suggested we move on to another topic,
that this obsessiveness was why the party was losing touch with the
average voter. A neighbor friend of mine in attendance, who later went
on to work for the Clinton Administration in DC, said: "I know Alan, and
I know he isn't a racist but....(he doesn't understand, etc.)"
If I'm to respect your knowledge and experience, you should respect
mine. Having people participate in good faith is far more important
than having them agree with you. How else can you know where you stand
in the world, how far you have to go, and what your prospects of getting
there are. And what you may need to do to get other people on board.
Alan Shilepsky
Downtown West
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
