Coleman Young's testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee

[ridgeabilly]

None that I can think of beside being a thug and a crook. Compared to Young, Kwame was the most perfect, honest and honorable politician in the history of the world.

You can candy-coat his tyranny any way you want to, but he was definitely the beginning of the end of the City.

A myopic and uneducated but prevalent viewpoint. The beginning of the end for the city began in the summer of 1925 at 2905 Garland Street. The systematic institutional racism and the inability of our leaders to combat has stymied this city for decades. If you are able, read " Arc of Justice ". Coleman was a product of our times, as we all are, but he didn't create the problem.

[Dan Wesson]

A myopic and uneducated but prevalent viewpoint. The beginning of the end for the city began in the summer of 1925 at 2905 Garland Street. The systematic institutional racism and the inability of our leaders to combat has stymied this city for decades. If you are able, read " Arc of Justice ". Coleman was a product of our times, as we all are, but he didn't create the problem.

Interesting tidbit...

The event that happened on Garland was also the genesis for this.

The original here, http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/...e_372_1927.pdf

[Lombaowski]

What were his accomplishments?

/thread ended here

[Lombaowski]

A myopic and uneducated but prevalent viewpoint. The beginning of the end for the city began in the summer of 1925 at 2905 Garland Street. The systematic institutional racism and the inability of our leaders to combat has stymied this city for decades. If you are able, read " Arc of Justice ". Coleman was a product of our times, as we all are, but he didn't create the problem.

I agree that Coleman Young was a product of our times, but Detroit peaked much later than 1925 and to suggest any different is the definition of "myopic." There is little doubt the city peaked sometime in the 1950s, it was really the center of the industrial universe. Elm-lined streets, great neighborhoods, jobs a plenty. Where Detroit went wrong was the influx of poor southern trash, white or black, same thing. People with no skills, no future, no aspirations outside the lottery mentality converging on our fair city for the easy buck.

So for every ten upstanding, hard working, American dream living people, there were three or four bottom of the barrel humans. 7th-grade-educated, hand out, head in the sand, barely able to sustain person of disregard. Then they bred, they stood on the corner, they tried to work but were rebuffed because they lacked the essential makeup of what would be an average worker.

Then they reproduced. All the southern white hate for blacks multiplied, upstanding blacks were lumped in with trash blacks, everyone was afraid of one another, and the system collapsed.

Per the topic of the thread, Coleman Young exacerbated the problem with is free-wheeling approach to politics and lack of common sense. Detroit had transitioned from economic powerhouse to something America has never seen before. The auto industry was declining, the riots were fresh, and people were generally afraid of each other. The fair housing act was really the last straw IMO, people think it was the riots but the fair housing act really changed Detroit forever. Not saying it was a bad thing, it just wasn't what Detroit needed.

So Coleman took over and he made the tax base even more afraid than they already were. I was born a year before Young took office, and he was my mayor until I left in 1986. The crack epidemic was the final straw, but Coleman Young never really helped what ailed Detroit. By the time he was in his third term he was just coasting, and the city was on its' way to being broke forever.

Sure he did some good, how could he not have in 20+ years as the mayor. But he ignored the real problems of the city at the most critical time, and he was always searching for some fight to win. No one won, and everyone who ever lived in the city lost. Think all you want that the city was lost in 1925, the best years of the city occurred well after that date. To think otherwise is foolish IMO.

[Wesley Mouch]

I agree that Coleman Young was a product of our times...snip...

Per the topic of the thread, Coleman Young exacerbated the problem with is free-wheeling approach to politics and lack of common sense. Detroit had transitioned from economic powerhouse to something America has never seen before. The auto industry was declining, the riots were fresh, and people were generally afraid of each other. The fair housing act was really the last straw IMO, people think it was the riots but the fair housing act really changed Detroit forever. Not saying it was a bad thing, it just wasn't what Detroit needed.

So Coleman took over and he made the tax base even more afraid than they already were. I was born a year before Young took office, and he was my mayor until I left in 1986. The crack epidemic was the final straw, but Coleman Young never really helped what ailed Detroit. By the time he was in his third term he was just coasting, and the city was on its' way to being broke forever.

Sure he did some good, how could he not have in 20+ years as the mayor. But he ignored the real problems of the city at the most critical time, and he was always searching for some fight to win. No one won, and everyone who ever lived in the city lost. Think all you want that the city was lost in 1925, the best years of the city occurred well after that date. To think otherwise is foolish IMO.

I don't agree with your sociological opinions, but you hit the CAY part right on the head.

CAY was a product of his times. To be sure. And I liked and respected much about him. He however was not what Detroit needed. He was unnecessarily divisive when we needed someone to unify Detroit. He chose to focus on the past issues that divided the races, not on taking steps to promote solidarity when Detroit was getting attacked by economic forces. Most major American cities have struggled mightily against these forces, and some have survived better than others. Detroit didn't struggle much. We were in denial. And in many ways we still are. We are bankrupt, but we don't believe it. Some talk of 'occupation' and the stripping of democratic power. The real problem is the failure of Detroit to be relevant. We can continue to obsess about local control or whether blacks or whites run Detroit or whether Belle Isle is being 'occupied' -- or we can get to work changing Detroit. We seem to prefer our denial. No changes to anything. Just find some more money so we can go on just like yesterday.

For this reason, I hope the Grand Bargain fails. I think the best thing for Detroit is to see the finances of the city collapse. City workers laid off in large numbers. And I can't even imaging what pain the pensioners will feel. Bad now?

[EastsideAl]

A myopic and uneducated but prevalent viewpoint. The beginning of the end for the city began in the summer of 1925 at 2905 Garland Street. The systematic institutional racism and the inability of our leaders to combat has stymied this city for decades. If you are able, read " Arc of Justice ". Coleman was a product of our times, as we all are, but he didn't create the problem.

I believe what ridgeabilly meant was that the events of that moment in 1925 on Garland started something that was never healed. Not that the city didn't prosper and grow from that point [[1925 was, in fact, near the height of the city's growth rate), but that the wheels set in motion then eventually overtook all else and stained nearly everything that happened thereafter.

I also agree with Wesley, for once, that Coleman Young, whatever his accomplishments, was not the best mayor for that period in the city's history. It was clear by the late '60s and early '70s that it was only a mater of time until a black mayor was elected in Detroit. But one does have to wonder how much the long-term outcome would have been affected had, say, Richard Austin [[definitely a more conciliatory figure) won the extremely close 1969 election and beaten Young to the mayoralty. Would so many white Detroiters have over-reacted so badly as they did after the much more divisive 1973 campaign?

[Wesley Mouch]

I believe what ridgeabilly meant was that the events of that moment in 1925 on Garland started something that was never healed. Not that the city didn't prosper and grow from that point [[1925 was, in fact, near the height of the city's growth rate), but that the wheels set in motion then eventually overtook all else and stained nearly everything that happened thereafter.

I also agree with Wesley, for once, that Coleman Young, whatever his accomplishments, was not the best mayor for that period in the city's history. It was clear by the late '60s and early '70s that it was only a mater of time until a black mayor was elected in Detroit. But one does have to wonder how much the long-term outcome would have been affected had, say, Richard Austin [[definitely a more conciliatory figure) won the extremely close 1969 election and beaten Young to the mayoralty. Would so many white Detroiters have over-reacted so badly as they did after the much more divisive 1973 campaign?

One also has to wonder the same question on race relations on a national level. What if the moderates like Martin Luther King had won instead of the radicals like Malcolm X. Would race relations have been better? My personal experiences make me think it could have turned out better.

There's a similar argument on abortion. That the national court-driven decision was more divisive that the state-level battles might have been -- with the same ultimate result but less acrimony.

Back to Detroit and CAY -- I can't quite look at CAY and see how he really helped Detroit much. He didn't help race relations, to be sure. What he did do was aggressively integrate city government. It needed to be done. And in concert with national hiring to administer social programs helped create a vibrant middle-class in Detroit. If CAY had also found a way to sell this to white Detroiters, he might have been a true hero.

For the most part, white Detroiters in the 60s and 70s were racially progressive. Look at Jerry Cavanaugh. He was also aggressively fighting for racial equality. But what happened is those very Detroiters who wanted a solution to race relations fled along with the white bigots when crime started grabbing control of Detroit. CAY did spout the right rhetoric. His famous call for criminals to 'hit 8 Mile Road' and go out to the suburbs presumably was a call to be tough on crime. But he couldn't quite call for more aggresive policing. Instead used that call to antagonize LBP and the suburbs. Conciliation on both sides was needed.

Thanks for agreeing with me, at least once, EastsideAl.

[SDCC]

I admired Coleman Young

[Wesley Mouch]

I admired Coleman Young

Me too. I think overall CAY was a positive influence on Detroit. He wasn't perfect. Its reasonable to discuss his weaknesses to help us learn and improve. I count myself as an admirer as well -- overall. Three off the top of my mind things Young should be proud of: 1) DPD integration , 2) Red Wings and JLA in Detroit, 3) Poletown keeping GM building cars right in the city limits. [[And of course he can be proud of his testimony before the HUAC.)