PJJ response, part 3of 3: Finally, I appreciate Eric returning some years to me. As a guy born before Pearl Harbor, its nice to be seen as a 20 something. If that means that I have retained my enthusiasm and vigor, I'll accept that. My college aged sons say I'm young at heart. I like to think the same (although my body does give me enough reminders that my bod, at least, is no longer a 20 something). Using the same inferential tool as Eric, I could infer Eric is 45 or older (although in a subsequent off post continuation, he notes he is a young Turk). A recent poll showed that, nationwide, young Blacks under 30, to the tune of 25%, think of themselves as Independents, not Democrats. This is an amazing development. This is very hard for the over 45s and over 50s Blacks who have counted on an almost lockstep response from Blacks to vote DFL. This part of the upcoming generation will not do so because they have seen the results in the cities and they don't like them (see young Booker T's regular columns in the Minneapolis Spokesman-Recorder). Indeed, it was young Booker T, running for Govenor, who was told by the over 45s in town that he had to ask their permission to run, which he bravely and correctly refused to do. The irony is that the over 45s (and over 50s) were all fire brands in their youth. It is sometimes hard for young Turks who become the old guard to turn it over to the next generation of young Turks (just like old politicians and old corporate CEOs). I don't have that problem. Nor does Ron. The job of us "old" guys is to step aside and advise from the corner as the young guys take their turn in the ring.
I was glad to learn from Eric that he was a young guy. I wish he and his generation all the best and if "old" guys like Ron and I and others on this list can provide perspective, history, and insights that might help him and the other young Turks in their time in the ring to achieve the same goals we all share. I hope in the process we can meld methods (where we currently disagree) and come together in a shared method for doing so. We'll learn from each other and we'll both adjust and the city will be better off for it. Back in 2000, Dave Jennings, now with the school district, by the way, having come from the Chamber of Commerce, in discussing the stadium problem, said "someone other than the teams has to create a public discussion about the future of the Twins and the Vikings in Minnesota. The teams are crying out for somebody to call the family meeting." (Star Tribune,8-10-00). Ron has greatly contributed to creating a public discussion about education, jobs, and housing. These issues call for a "family meeting" as well. Who should call it? Ron started the process in a small way by getting the mediation with the police going, despite all the fights against it, especially from the city (read the genesis of the mediation issue in his Chapte 16). Why not Al Gallmon of the NAACP? Had Ron won the NAACP election, I'm sure he would have. We are a society of institutions and thus are hostage to them as many of the posts on this list reflect. But people usually respond to what institutions do and say. So an institution has to do this. If not the NAACP, who? A newspaper? A company? A coalition? Who on this list belongs to an organization willing to do so? And if you think it is not possible, look at the models for conflict resolution Ron asked us to put on his web site (under "occasional papers). And perhaps Eric and Booker T and the other young Turks have an organization in mind to do so. I challenge them to either call a meeting or work with some organization to call a meeting. Let the family meeting be called. Let the conversation begin. Peter Jessen, Portland -----Original Message----- From: Eric Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon 8/18/2003 9:08 PM I understand that Peter is simply a twenty-something year old bootlicker of Edwards who lives out on the West Coast and has never interacted with these people he slings names and assign sinister intent to, that he seems to know our motives. Peter's guilt must be enormous. He's telling me about my own folks and the conversations and observations we discuss behind closed doors. ... the hell with truth, Ron Edwards is the only truth we need. ... I think you think he's Jesus. ... Ron and Doug Mann are both losers in the world of elective representation. ... Ron was embarassed by the NAACP ... he blames the 'man' ... they are all a bunch Uncle Tom sellouts. ... Ron does half the job, he points at what is wrong but offers no viable strategy to correct it. ... Even with the things he highlights that are glaring truths, he readily ties a conspiracy to it and loose potential support because of his personal issue with individuals and institutions. ... There is institutional racism, but its not from the people who suggest that parents get very involved in their kids education. Your attacks on Gallmon only provides a sheild for those who really don't give a damn about the kids in these schools ... This whole thing isn't about education, it's about a personal vendetta, a book that won't sell, and a kid trying to make a name for himself. What a waste. TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
