Jim Graham raises the point that is a huge contention among liberals and Blacks: that despite the rhetoric, they have and continue to take those actions that keep, as James Baldwin put it, the Black in his place. Liberals are split between those who continue this pattern because of the racist conclusion of the liberal Kerner Commission Report of 1968 Blacks couldn't make it on their own, those who fight this, and those who still straddle that fence. The book The Bell Curve, in 1998, idiotically concluded Blacks can't make it on their own because they have the least intelligence. With these perspectives, it is no wonder that those who think this way (either from the liberal or conservative side) vote for what attempts to keep Blacks on their inner city plantations. Those who have gotten out, gotten educated, gotten professional roles, etc. and so forth, are to be commended for doing so despite having to overcome obstacles Whites don't have to hurdle. Let's work to remove these barriers, not continue to put them up. This is the theme of Ron Edward's book: the persistent denying of equal access and equal opportunity to Blacks in the areas of education, housing, jobs, politics, government, etc., often at the hands of Blacks in positions where it is advantageous to act against the Black community. Ron clearly notes the progress in these areas but also is clear where the barriers are still kept in place. But Ron also lays out a plan for bringing the different perspectives to the table to resolve this. His Interludes of history help us remember the bad that has been done, his suggestions for the future help us to think of the good that can be done. The question for every community is the same: in 25 years, will those looking back see the bad continued or the good installed. Ron's YESes and NOs are as good a definition of what is good (the YESes) and the bad (the NOs) as we will find. I commend them to all of you.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gemgram Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 6:53 AM To: Steve Brandt; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] NRP vote; Shame of a Council Steve Brandt is correct in his article about the Black and minority community welcoming a plan to create affordable home-ownership. I sometimes believe the politicians and developers look at Black people, and Native people, as a permanent underclass to be exploited as renters and with poverty programs but never to be sustainably helped. Helping to keep poor people poor is NOT helping poor people The road to success for most "new" immigrant groups is no secret. It has been and is by acquiring homeownership, and then business ownership. The pseudo-liberals give lip service to empowering people but they join with the good old boy conservatives to remove that chance. It is also no secret why Black people and Native people represent so small a per-capita homeownership rate. They have been systematically and institutionally prevented from equal access to homeownership. Their roles have been defined as "Renter" and poor person, and how dare someone try to disturb that status quo? How dare the neighborhood representatives on the NRP Policy Board try to empower some poor people? The eight Council Members and the Mayor should feel shame today for their elitism. But probably they just feel smug because they slapped those darn poor people and neighborhoods back down where they belong. Heck, before you knew what was happening you might have had poor minority people buying houses out where they live. While this explains why the "elite three" voted the way they did, what about the CM's such as Zimmerman and Samuels. What political payoff caused those supposed neighborhood people to desert their neighborhoods? Was it no more than joining those "elite three" because they feared losing control of that money to the neighborhoods and poor people? Those two and a few others have some explaining to do. Of course they are probably too important to explain their motives to the neighborhoods that elected them. While pretending to be uxorious of the neighborhoods, could they in reality have joined the condescending elite their actions seem to indicate. I always thought Peter McLaughlin was too valuable at Hennepin County, and we did not want him to change jobs. After that vote maybe we should look again. Perhaps it is time to start recruiting a whole new batch of political candidates. Perhaps ones who actually support the neighborhood people rather than just making campaign promises. Mark Stenglein is another politician who voted to support neighborhoods and poor people. He and Peter McLaughlin are politicians who put wise housing decisions and planning ahead of the political fluff and developer cronies that some present City politicians favor. Hope to see many of you at the Capital at noon. Jim Graham, Ventura Village >Things that matter most should never be at the mercy of things, which matter least. - Johann von Goethe TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
