I like the way Jim wrote that. Well said. And, of course, as far as is
goes, I totally agree. And even Ron admits the same when he adds "Through
My Eyes" to the title of his book. I have written under that rubric
("Through My Eyes" = in my opinion) but have not made that clear. I thank
Jim for making that clarification and I welcome this opportunity to second
it. What I write is, indeed, in my opinion.
Having said that, may we, in the spirit of good "golden rule" discussion,
which I appreciated, take it a step further? Webster's 9th defines "flack"
as "one who provides publicity" (Webby doesn't list the negative
defintions). So, according to that, I'm a flack. So be it. I'm a flack.
No argument there. But I'm an excellent one, which, if you agree with me
you'll appreciate and if you do not agree with me you won't. And everything
I say is, of course, "in my opinion" because even when basing my thinking on
empirical facts, my judgement about those facts, when uttered, are
automatically my interpretation (except when I get to 2 + 2 = 4, etc). And
I work under the wise saying "Reality is of course ... until further
notice."
And so, on one level, in the spirit of Jim's remarks, myself included, I
think we can agree that it would have been more accurate for me to have said
"In the opinion of those who share his view point, myself included, Ron
speaks as an elder statemesman, a "wise man" of the community, as a
conscience of the community." And in truth it was from other members of the
Black community that I heard him described that way. I know he doesn't
speak for those White friends of mine in Minneapolis who told me I must have
lost all of my self esteem because as a professional I am bottom feeding by
working with Blacks. My response to that statement, by the way, was, "do
you mean when Ron Edwards says there is racism in Minneapolis he is
correct?" And I know Ron doesn't speak for those in the Black community who
want to keep the status quo (e.g., the NAACP), as he recounts in recent web
log entries on that organization as well as on this question of who speaks
for who.
But I would ask for a moment's indulgence (guys in their 60s need all the
breaks they can get). As a man who is also in his 60's, Ron, in my view,
qualifies as an elder. And, in my view, Ron, as a man who offers as his
base approach the seeking of the common ground for all to stand on using the
Golden Rule and the dynamic of reconciliation, he qualifies as wise. And,
again in my view, Ron lays out the injustices and unfairnesses with
empirical data to show not only the gaps in education, jobs, housing, public
safety, safe environment, etc., but their intentional purposefullness.
Clearly, because he does this in his attemmpt to seek a seat at the table
for everyone, meaning equal access and equal opportunity for all, I believe
we could agree that he qualifies for being a Jimminy Cricket, a
"conscience." On the matters of this paragraph, I believe we are dealing
with empirically verifiable evidence. Having admitted that, we can still
diverge on what that means and what we should do with it. In his book Ron
discusses the Dred Scott case (which got its start at Fort Snelling).
Indeed, it was Ron who introduced me to the statemement of Supreme Court
Justice Taney who wrote that case's decision regarding African Americans
(that ruled that African Americans -- slave or freed -- were not citizens
and had no citizen rights): "They had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect."
For his 7 Solutions piece
(www.theminneapolisstory.com/pages/actualize.html), I believe we again see
evidence of wisdom and conscience, using my criteria above. The same, I
would suggest, is true of his "Restorative Affirmative Action" paper
(www.theminneapolisstory.com/pages/restore.html). I base that on my "other
work" as a social scientist which is what Ron liked about my background, as
I could provide research and editing from an experienced point of view,
given my experience teaching and lecturing at various colleges,
universities, and business schools (including such relevant courses as
"American Minorities," "Social Inequality and Social Stratification;"
"Social Psychology;" "Social Movements," "Senior Seminar on Theory: Special
Topics in Sociology and Anthropology," including compiled/edited 8 readers
and 22 papers for these classes). I've also given 15 invited guest lectures
at 9 universities and colleges, including The Naval Academy, The American
University, The University of Maryland, and George Washington University,
and several key note presentations for regional and national conferences,
including a Commencement Address for the Joint ROTC of Gustavus Adolphus
College and Mankato State University). And the fact that I was the only
White guy within miles in South Chicago in 1964 engaged in conversation with
Mohammad Ali, that I was with church young people that went East to work on
youth issues that sent a delegation to Washington for the gathering when
Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I have a dream" speech, that I was in
Harlem the weekend Malcolm X was assassinated, and that I worked in a ghetto
project in Washington, D.C. in the 70s, added a touch of possible
credibility as a flack.
But what, in my view, is not opinion are the facts laid out by Mr. Edwards
regarding the gaps in the areas he discusses in his book and the 7 Solutions
piece (education, jobs, housing, public safety, etc.), much of the evidence
being reports from Minneapolis Star Tribune and other Minnesota agencies,
publications or documentation. These are facts. But what do the facts
mean? Does he draw accurate conclusions and interpretations from the facts?
Here is where we can all agree, disagree, or agree to disagree. In my
view, he has drawn the proper conclusions about their meaning in his book.
Certainly for those satisfied with the status quo, he doesn't speak for
them. And for those who want to change the status quo differently than what
he suggests he also doesn't speak for them. But then, wisdom again, he
doesn't say his recommendations are THE recommendations. What he says is
that rather than just provide critiques, he provides solution suggestions
(throughout the book and all brought together in Chapter 17), and calls for
a "family meeting" in his 7 Solutions piece and stresses the "ubuntu
reconciliation" approach of Desmund TuTu in several of this web log entries,
which I also believe add credibility to his use of wisdom as a conscience.
As Ron wrote in a recent Blog entry, it is "Whites who speak for Blacks"
because their votes determine. That, to me, in my view, is both very
simple, very profound, and very wise.
That reminds me of this following statement from one of the list members (I
apologize for not getting the name of who wrote it; if you recognize this
please stand up and take credit and receive a deserved bow): "it in fact is
those same "good" liberal people from "better neighborhoods" who have
allowed and participated in the actual discrimination against poor people
and minority communities. By their obtuse blindness to the social plight of
those impacted communities and neighborhoods they were in fact actively
participating in that very same pattern of discrimination. Politicians have
created that pattern and those "containment zones" because they think the
powerful voting public wants to keep poverty and crime "contained". The
reason they create "Supportive Housing" concentrations in violation of the
City's own law and Federal Law is that the politicians believe this makes
their better off "voting" constituents happy."
Ron is all for making White voters happy. But he is also for making Black
voters happy. Hence his call for finding a common ground where both can
stand, doing so in a personal interaction dynamic following the Golden Rule
to seek reconciliation.
Peace and freedom.
Peter Jessen, Portland
Visiting Minneapolis November 14-24, 2003.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:32 AM
To: 'Peter Jessen'; 'Minneapolis Forum'
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Post 2 of 2 on Community, Ideas, Leaders, and
Leadership
I think that we need some clarification here. Peter Jessen is flack for
Ron Edwards. No sin in that; lots of people hire flacks to promote
themselves and their books or other venues. Mr. Jessen is the publisher
of Ron Edwards book and has a vested interest in promoting the book.
Again, no sin in that. Ron Edwards has something to say and wrote a
book that reflects his thinking and got it published - and deserves
kudos for that.
Peter Jessen writes: "Ron speaks as an elder statesman, a "wise man" of
the community, as a conscience of the community." Well, Mr. Jessen is
certainly entitled to his opinion and to promote his author and the
book.
I think in fairness however, that a clause needs to be inserted
specifically before his quote about Mr. Edwards: "In my opinion . . ."
Otherwise, Mr. Jessen's assertion sounds like a fact - with which I
believe that many of us in Minneapolis would beg to differ.
Jim Bernstein
Fulton
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Peter Jessen
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:22 PM
To: Minneapolis Forum
Subject: [Mpls] Post 2 of 2 on Community, Ideas, Leaders, and Leadership
snip
He answers the question of who speaks for the
Black
community in his web log entries #190-191, 193-194, and gave the
realistic
answer on Tuesday, October 20, in #194: White voters.
Peter Jessen, Portland
Visiting Minneapolis Nov 14-24
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see:
http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
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
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
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
