If Ray Nagin gets re-elected in April

The BBQ Pit
61

On reflection, it seems as if I’m wrong. I asked SteveMB two questions, one of which did ask whether or not the government should care if poor folks are displaced by the rich. My bad.

I think the government should care, or at least act like they care (which gets to the point I answered in my last post). In DC, gentrification has pushed many people out of their communities and has priced out many others, resulting in a rise in homelessness and other problems. Although its not illegal for this to occur, I think it contributes to social instability when this happens too quickly. In the case of NO, many of the people who do come back and try to rebuild may find that they can not because the cost of living there is too high. They will be left on the streets.

Them’s the breaks, some will say. And a part of me agrees with that. But I don’t think it would be unreasonable for the government to recognize this as a potential problem and put some plans in place to help people out. I certainly don’t recommend treating it like a non-issue.

62

What is your definition of racism, and how does your definition allow the belief that certain races should always be in the majority in certain geographical areas? I’m asking that as a sincere question because I can’t think of a reasonable definition of racism that would.

63

What the hell’s so silly about it? I think it’s perfectly apt. You’ve got the comfort of your majority status, so it’s easy for you to begrudge those who want the same.

How, because of all the white Hispanics moving in?

Again, easy for you to say.

That’s what I meant, blacks, like Nagin, who voice their desire to be in the majority.

64

No, because of all the non-White Hispanics moving in. Sorry, but Blacks don’t get the sole claim to non-White status in the US.

The ease with which something can be said has nothing to do with it’s veracity or lack thereof.

OK, I jump down their throats because they’re being racist and divisive. What’s wrong with that?

65

  1. Nagin’s comment was racist. He suggested that a chocolate NO is preferable to a non-chocolate NO. Which, on its face, is racist.

  2. Just because something is racist doesn’t mean it is offensive. Jobs shouldn’t be lost just because someone utters a racist comment. It has to be sufficiently offensive to warrant that kind of reaction.

  3. Two things can be racist and offensive, but rate differently on the offensiveness scale. “Asian people have the prettiest hair” is not anything like “White people are mini-gods; bow down and kiss my converse, nigger!” Yet, amazingly enough, both statements are racist!

  4. Context is also important. See below.

  5. Nagin’s comment–while racist–is no more offensive had he been talking about a “blueberry city” in reference to blue-collar workers instead of blacks. And it was essentially what he *was *talking about. Gentrification–the concern that he was addressing–is primarily a class issue. Not a racial one. Nagin was assuring people that they would not be economically displaced by the rich. By putting it in terms of skin color, he blurred the fact that he was really talking about green.

Since race and class are so tightly linked in that part of the country, it’s not really a surprise that he would do that.

66

My .02;

  1. Nagin’s comments were racist.

  2. There is a double standard regarding what kind of statements can be made and who can make them.

  3. The Robertson-esque stuff is as scary as it is stupid.

  4. He could have phrased that statement a hundred different ways. He didn’t, because he knew he’d get press and knew he’d pander to the lowest common denominator.

  5. He should be called on it. A black mayor making racist statements in 2006, should be treated the same as if he were a white mayor making racist statements. The history of institutionalized racism, while important overall, is irrelevant in this case. It’s not about what was done, we all damn well KNOW what was done, it’s about making sure it stops. Nagin’s not doing that with his “chocolate city” comment.

  6. Both he and Blanco are the reason Katrina did the kind of damage it did to that city. Bush is to blame for standing on the sidelines during the response phase, and allowing FEMA to fail to properly respond.

67

They made the hurricane do more damage to NO&LA, how the extra hot air?

68

I appreciate the sincerity of your request and will try to answer. Sorry I was gone so long.

Having gone back and forth on the issue for awhile now, I’ve come to recognize that the only meaningful definitions of racism to me have to have an actual belief in racial superiority (I’m better than you because I am black!), backed by socioeconomic clout and/or the actuality or threat of personal violence to preserve one’s “superiority.” Without those two elements, everything else can be shelved under “bigotry,” “prejudice,” “discrimination,” “xenophobia” and “ethnocentrism.” These are often indicators of racism but the only way they “prove” racism is when they result in hate crimes or biased and unfair socioeconomic actions.

Nagin correctly noted New Orleans was a black majority city in the past, and said he wanted the city’s racial (please read: ethnic) composition to soon return to the status quo prior to the forced evacuation last year. He recognizes that New Orleans is a prime piece of real estate and that a large scale flight of its people will open it to money real estate interests of all racial backgrounds – but, mostly likely, whites who probably won’t be from New Orleans who will irrevocably change the character of their city just as Hollywood did when they “discovered” Aspen, Colorado.

Evoking God into his belief was dumb and bigoted. I just don’t think it was particularly racist because I don’t see where he has expressed a belief in his own racial superiority or any evidence of a willingness to back that up his desires with socioeconomic leverage or violence. His future actions may compel me to retract that. But I think that is unlikely as I do not believe Ray Nagin to be a racist. Louis Farrakhan? Sure. Anti-Semitic, too. Ray Nagin is looking into his political future and the likely redistricting of New Orleans must be weighing heavily on his mind. Self-preservation in politics isn’t racist – usually.

Ethnic peoples holding on to a geographic area as a basis for a culture isn’t racist in and of itself. How you do so reveals your racist tendencies. Black Africa isn’t racist: the purge of Indians, Asians and whites from many parts of Uganda and from South African Boer homesteads was, just as the apartheid townships that forced the majority of the population to the outskirts of J’burg was. Chinatowns aren’t racist, but the racism that forced ethnic Chinese to settle in those areas was real. Sprawling homesteads of Amish aren’t racist, the neo-African post-slavery enclaves on the Carolina Sea Islands aren’t racist, the high percentage of Jews in New York city in the Diamond Exchange isn’t racist, just as the high percentage of blacks in the NBA isn’t. The Palestinian and Israeli violence in the Middle East has made them all highly racist – or bigoted xenophobes, if you prefer. Wanting to benignly preserve those territories cultures and ethnic compositions if you live there isn’t racist. Resorting to socioeconomic exclusion, gentrification, territorial grabs and unprovoked and retaliatory violence and/or harassment by police may well be.

69

Thanks for the detailed response. I’ll get back you tomorrow with a few questions. It’s “Lost” night tonight, and I have to get ready for my viewing group. :slight_smile:

70

Askia, that was a well-thought post, and I agree.

I think Mayor Nagin really botched that speech, unfortunately. It was a speech given at an MLK rally, and I think he was trying to reach the community ala Dr. King, hence the Preacher Speech references to God’s will, but, he is no Martin Luther King, and , really, shouldn’t have let himself get carried away like that. Here’s the New Orleans paper article on the speech, a bit of balance.

Yet, I can understand the stresses he must be under. My sister has moved back to NOLA as of October; she says it’s depressing and desperate. A friend just returned today, a NOLA native, first time back since Katrina, and the photos he took were heartbreaking. I have a lot of deep NOLA ties as well, and looking at those photos, taken last week, it’s just unfathomable what it will take for the city to rebuild. Yes, Nagin is the Mayor, and should hold it together, but, this is such an incredible devastation. I’ll give him a bit of leeway in not being cool and collected enough.

New Orleans most certainly was a chocolate city, I think the most Black city in the country, in terms of African culture being a vibrant source of the city’s identity, for centuries. It 's been a melting pot of many cultures, but is the only place in the US I’ve ever been too that has an old African-American culture held up as celebration. It was also extremely poor with so many problems, but the way people there dealt with that was exquisite in expression. Jazz, parades, second line dancers, street artists, incredible food…that soundds so touristy, I’m at a loss for words…but i always found New Orleans to be the most people friendly wonderful place in this country.

I can’t imagine the pain to see all those people in diaspora as they are now. I hope that all efforts are made to let the heart of New Orleans come back and help rebuild their home. I think that’s what Mayor Nagin meant, though he prolly needs a fine politico mind to guide him to more finesse of speech. Maybe FEMA can send him one.

71

I wonder if Mr. Nagin has been getting kickbacks from a Mr. Wonka to advocate building a city out of a certain tasty material, of which Mr. Wonka happens to specialize in producing.

If so, we’ve just uncovered another scandel.

72

Two questions? They look to me like two phrasings of the same question.

As for the question(s), almost every local government has succumbed to the obvious temptation (gentrification = higher property taxes = more boodle for politicians to buy votes) to enact pro-gentrification policies, which ought to be reversed (but for obvious reasons probably won’t be).

73

Just to follow up on my post yesterday, a definition of some terms, which may answer some of John Mace’s questions. These definitions probably won’t be found as such in any dictionary

“racism,” a stated belief in the superiority of one’s race, or a belief in a heirarchy of races. To my mind, proof of a persons racism can be determined by the number and depth of the following indicators:

“bigotry,” any prejudice that persists despite facts to the contrary. Most bigotry stems from willful ignorance. Most bigotry is often intractable.

“prejudice,” a belief that exists before facts are examined. Unlike bigotry, most prejudice can be eliminated, or at least mitigated, with honest facts and a willingless to have an open mind.

“discrimination,” is any preferential treatment that benefits one person over another for posessing a certain quality seemed as desirable. Some forms of discrimination are unlawful and protected: others are quite common.

“xenophobia” is an irrational fear of something or something different. Unlike racism, bigotry, prejudice and discrimination, I believe this emotional response to be largely an unthinking, reflexive and involuntary reaction. Considered on a cultural level, I suspect most xenophobia is the result of a widespread, ingrained and exaggerated bigotry.

“ethnocentrism” is the ordinarily benign belief, common to almost all human civilizations, that the culture you happen to have been brought up in, (and frequently, whatever group associations we seek out and adopt), are the “best” of its kind: its language, its history, its mores, its values, its foods, its naming, marriage and funeral traditions, its rites of passage and common arts forms, its humor, among others. In my opinion, extreme forms of ethnocentrism that are intolerant of other cultures, nearby or afar leads to, among other things, jingoism, language bigotry, racism – and – in the internet, NIMMBYism. (Not In My Message Board, Yutz)

A person can have moderate beliefs in ethnocentrism, xenophobia, discrimination, prejudice and bigotry without actually being racist. But realistically? The more indicators I can check off and the more extreme those beliefs are, the worse it looks for the racist.

74

Askia: OK, I think I see where you’re coming from, and I’m probably about 90% on the same page. I’m just not clear why you would say Nagin statement isn’t racist (ie, not racist at all) as opposed to acknowledging the racist tone, even if it isn’t a particularly dangerous type of racism-- ie, he’s not threatening anyone. I was particularly struck by the comment that God wants NOLA to be majority African-American. That sounds disturbingly close to the type of religious justification that Whites have used (and some still do) for their own racism, even if he was just pandering to his audience.

Since Blacks don’t have the history of institutionally shutting out Whites in this country, Nagin’s statement doesn’t carry the ominous undertones that a White mayor’s comments would have if he said God wanted his city to be majority White. In fact, Nagin’s comments aren’t really threatening in any real way. Despite the progress that has been made, Whites still have an advantage in this country, and that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Still, one can be racist w/o being threatening.

But I do agree with the idea that there is a sliding scale, and while Nagin’s statement might be a 2 on a scale of 0 to 10, it isn’t a 0. I also don’t think that racial prejudice can be completely separated from racism, no matter how benign the prejudice might be. That is simply part of the standard definition, and by that I literally mean what you find in the dictionary.

75

It’s interesting that people here would defend Nagin’s comments when he himself quickly apologized for them. He was obviously way out of line. The comments were racist and stupid.

Last night on Fox News I saw Al Sharpton speak about this. He wouldn’t defend the remarks and said he didn’t know anybody who would.

Nagin himself, who made the comments, plus Sharpton, who is king of nutty racial comments, both realize that the comments were stupid. Why can’t everyone on the SDMB?

76

I know retractions and apologies have been made, but I thought there was a bit of irony in the speech.

Nagin wants blacks to move back to NO. No sweat. But God is punishing the US for being in Iraq, the punishment is in the form of hurricane after hurricane.

Looks like, if Nagin truely cares about the blacks, he’d tell them to stay the hell out of NO until the US pulls out of Iraq lest they come back just in time for another round of God-induced wrath. Of course he could then use that disaster as further proof that Bush hates blacks and God hates America.

Or something.

Seems like it would be better for NO to stay white until the US pulls out of Iraq and gets back on God’s good side. That way when NO’s wiped out again, The Man will have to pay by letting white people be the ones wiped out.

Or something.

The above post was written with tongue in cheek, a bit of sarcasm. I hope that anyone who wants to live in NO can do so regardless of skin color or what Mayor Nagin thinks, and that no hurricanes hit that city or any other city based on US foreign policy. I just thought his rhetoric was a bit ironic.

77

Is that your litmus test? If a white guy is not offended it must not be racist? What about when a white guy is offended? Or do you just “know better”? Have you ever supported a white person’s claim of racism?

78

John Mace, I guess I’m just more comfortable calling Nagin’s comments – tone included – the product of a thoughtless pandering chocolate city lovin’ bigot than those of a racist, and that his comments were prejudicial rather than borne of racism. The fact that he retracted and apologized, to me, is agood indicator he probably isn’t racist. Racists don’t typically flip-flop on their opinions like that. To me, if you sound racist without coming across threatening or exercising power to assure an ethnic superiority, you’re more likely to be a bigot or xenophobe than an actual racist.

Here’s a quick look at people I consider racist.

The Klan? Socialist Party, The American Nazi Party, John Birchers, segregationists? All racist, and discriminators and mostly bigots. Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford? Bigots. 'Cuz for all their bluster, disdain and misanthropy, none of them ever seemed to support separatist movements and wouldn’t hurt anybody just for being a different color. Old school hardcore Nation of Islam members? Racists, bigots and borderline xenophobes. Five Percent Nation? Bigots with like, one toe over the line being racist. From what I’ve seen, Asian culture is rife with ethnic discrimination and prejudices and old bigotries, as do certain European nationalities. I no longer believe everything rises to the level of actual racism.

90% agreement is better than I thought I’d do.

Debaser, you could sooner get me to eat an entire jar of bubbling, sun-warmed mayonnaisse than to get the SDMB to agree on a race topic. Hell, we can’t even agree that I, in my scholarly perscipacity, am likely the sole accurate infallibale artibiter of perfect wit and hard won experience to know what actually constitutes racism and the rest of you guys way, way overreact.

Chillax, yo.

79

Maybe not. But in my opinion you are as good as we got. Seriously.

For Swizzle.

80

I wonder if the same defense would be made for this:

I don’t see any difference. And yes, Nagin is responsible for innocent deaths of blacks, whites, latinos and every other ethnic group. It is his city, they are his people. He may not have gone to war with another country (that never signed a peace treaty after the cease-fire), the problem is he didn’t do anything about the known threat. Lack of action is sometimes worse than a wrong action.

Considering, moreover, how many poor blacks died, and the fact that so many of those poor were against him…hmmm.