local leadership & sustained progress

The NAACP will have its annual Freedom Weekend workshops by the end of April, 2009. I will be in attendance, and intend in particular to attend the 'Town Hall' meeting[[s). I want to ask the panelists what their general views are on encouraging accountability and cultural cooperation internal to the city of Detroit and external.

Even in acknowledgement of the continued presence of racial prejudice, systemic or otherwise, and the fact that there are various individuals who consider themselves adversarial to the city of Detroit and its residents, I feel like Detroit leadership can’t get out of its own way when it comes to rising above the bitter blame games of the past.

Often times it seems that city leaders, activists and others want to stress their pro-black credentials when it comes to election time or if a regional or local community issue comes to a head- The Cobo controversy is just one of many recurring standoffs-- ‘they’ want to take over the water department, , they’ want to take over the school boards; ‘they’ want to take over Belle Isle.. people say ‘they’ so much you would think it’s a corporation based out of Lansing, Rochester or somewhere.

And as much as that kind of rhetoric gets black Detroiters to circle the wagons and support a particular candidate or position, it does little to address substantive reforms in policies that need to take place to improve the quality of life here. It also perpetuates the assumption that there are no people of good will from other cultural groups outside or even inside the city, or the racial landscape of the metro area is the same as it once was in 1965, and it’s just not.
Because Detroit’s population is predominantly African-American, it seems like city leaders adopted the premise that these public city-based institutions are “black owned� by default and therefore free to use as political trump cards just to more or less benefit themselves. I have a problem with that.

African-American leadership has either been at the helm or have held key positions in these institutions for well over the past 30 years, and as of 2009, the state they are in is self-evident., but it seems like such a chore for Detroit residents to get some basic competency and transparency that other communities seem to take for granted. So when it comes to things like city government, city utilities or Detroit Public Schools, it’s like I’m being told “hey brother, we run this, and even if we want to run it into the ground, as long as ‘we’ run it and not ‘them’, then that’s all that matters". What are your thoughts?

http://www.freeinst.org/
http://www.detroitnaacp.org

I think you've just described the problem precisely.

I find the racial aspect of Detroit quite interesting. Blacks who once suffered exclusion by whites are now trying to turn the tables and use their somewhat newly begotten powers in revenge. Ironically, it ends up hurting themselves because they fail to realize that although they may have an overwhelming population and political advantage within the city proper, in the metro area, they, or rather, Detroit itself, is still the minority. Not to mention their even smaller share of the economic wealth.

As unfortunate as it was for blacks to have been discriminated against when Detroit was majority white, it is perhaps equally unfortunate that since they've become the majority, they've created a self-inflicted segregation that fosters the same claims to privilege that plagued their former oppressors. [[I'm thinking of Moronica Conyours, specifically.)

As for the NAACP, I find it strange that they still exist. How much more "advanced" can you get than The President of The United States? Let's face it: they are race mongers. That any organization would define themselves by skin color is, in my opinion, the embodiment of racism.

But then, as I'm sure you'll hear from blksoul_x, the black people are only repeating what they've been taught by basic white amerikkka. So the stupidity continues...

Finally, on a personal note: If you are white, prepare to get absolutely nowhere, you racist! And if you are black, shame on you for thinking for yourself and not conforming to the black agenda, you Uncle Tom!

[[That last paragraph was facetious.)

"As for the NAACP, I find it strange that they still exist. How much more "advanced" can you get than The President of The United States?"

If one kid from Detroit Public Schools graduates from UM or Harvard or Yale with honors, does that mean that all must be well with the Detroit Public Schools and there's nothing more that should be done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

And as much as that kind of rhetoric gets black Detroiters to circle the wagons and support a particular candidate or position, it does little to address substantive reforms in policies that need to take place to improve the quality of life here.

---

What makes you think these folks have any interest in improving our quality of life? It's a politics thing, not a black Detroit thing. Solving problems and making things better requires effort, courage, and a modicum of competence. Scapegoating only requires you to shout louder than everybody else, and it's at least as effective at building short-term political capital.

Scapegoating is more prominent here because there is a greater disparity between the problems that exist and the courage, competence, and willingness to expend effort exhibited by our local politicians than is seen in most other places, but we didn't invent the tactic by any means. Most of the folks who use race use it because it works, not because they feel particularly strongly about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

What makes you think these folks have any interest in improving our quality of life? It's a politics thing, not a black Detroit thing. Solving problems and making things better requires effort, courage, and a modicum of competence. Scapegoating only requires you to shout louder than everybody else, and it's at least as effective at building short-term political capital.

Scapegoating is more prominent here because there is a greater disparity between the problems that exist and the courage, competence, and willingness to expend effort exhibited by our local politicians than is seen in most other places, but we didn't invent the tactic by any means. Most of the folks who use race use it because it works, not because they feel particularly strongly about it.

---

Also its about power to go along with the politics. People do not share power unless it is in their best interests to do so or the power is taken. The Cobo deal is a example of the former and the DPS takeover is the example of the latter.
Because Detroit is a majority black city this is what you have, but people regardless of color displays this type of behavior.

Politics is a zero-sum game I win ,you lose and people will use methods as distasteful as they may be to play that game.

Once I read this quote from CAY I knew it was just a game

"Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young: "Orville Hubbard was quite a man. Believe it or not, he was a person I admired. He and I disagreed on some things, but he was a hell of a mayor. I regarded him as one of the best mayors in the United States. ... He took care of business. He knew how to meet the needs of his people "

There's so little trust among the region from a historical basis, some Detroiters aren't convinced yet that regionalism is in there best interest and the politicans only reflect the views of their base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

There's so little trust among the region from a historical basis, some Detroiters aren't convinced yet that regionalism is in there best interest and the politicans only reflect the views of their base.

---

I think they also shape the views of their base. Tell people enough times that things are the way they are because of all the racist white folks who want the city to fail, and they'll start to believe it, especially since many of them are not particularly well-educated or informed.

Ask not, what your City can do for you. Ask, what can you do for me, the politician. Here's how it works. If I, the politician, want something from someone looking to do business in my jurisdiction, then I oppose what they're trying to do. I get you my constituents to feel that you're being disrespected because the person I want something from is trying to do business in our jurisdiction.

I, the politician, then get you worked up and organize you to show up at all of the public hearings and discussions on the subject and make me look good.

After which, either the person that wants to do business in my jurisdiction will deal with me on our issues or I will continue to organize you to oppose them. Once I've gotten what I want, well, I understand your issues. But, I have to do what's best for the general public. But, thank you for all your assistance in helping me get what I want.

And if I or my allies don't get what I/we want. Then we, all of you and me, simply continue to oppose the person that wants to do business in my jurisdiction, while I get re-elected until I move on to another office or am term limited or whatever.

Meanwhile, after everything is said and done, and I've made noise, with your help, for 2, 4, 6 or however many years. You have exactly what you had before I was there. Nothing.

But, I got mine. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retroit

I think you've just described the problem precisely.

I find the racial aspect of Detroit quite interesting. Blacks who once suffered exclusion by whites are now trying to turn the tables and use their somewhat newly begotten powers in revenge. Ironically, it ends up hurting themselves because they fail to realize that although they may have an overwhelming population and political advantage within the city proper, in the metro area, they, or rather, Detroit itself, is still the minority. Not to mention their even smaller share of the economic wealth.

As unfortunate as it was for blacks to have been discriminated against when Detroit was majority white, it is perhaps equally unfortunate that since they've become the majority, they've created a self-inflicted segregation that fosters the same claims to privilege that plagued their former oppressors. [[I'm thinking of Moronica Conyours, specifically.)

As for the NAACP, I find it strange that they still exist. How much more "advanced" can you get than The President of The United States? Let's face it: they are race mongers. That any organization would define themselves by skin color is, in my opinion, the embodiment of racism.

But then, as I'm sure you'll hear from blksoul_x, the black people are only repeating what they've been taught by basic white amerikkka. So the stupidity continues...

Finally, on a personal note: If you are white, prepare to get absolutely nowhere, you racist! And if you are black, shame on you for thinking for yourself and not conforming to the black agenda, you Uncle Tom!

[[That last paragraph was facetious.)

---

Wooooooah there Retroit, hold your tongue! Detroit isn't the only culprit here! This region, whether your white or black, has VERY deep seeded racist mentalities. Both sides - urban and suburban are at fault. I've lived on both spectrums and have come to realize this. Plus, let's not forget the region as a whole is losing money and population.

The difference is that Detroit city needs the suburbs more than the suburbs need the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcmorrison12

Wooooooah there Retroit, hold your tongue! Detroit isn't the only culprit here! This region, whether your white or black, has VERY deep seeded racist mentalities. Both sides - urban and suburban are at fault. I've lived on both spectrums and have come to realize this. Plus, let's not forget the region as a whole is losing money and population.

---

Too much common sense in this post for anyone to actually pay attention to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retroit

The difference is that Detroit city needs the suburbs more than the suburbs need the city.

---

This is silly.

You need me more than I need you.

No, no, you need me more than I need you.

No, I don't need you at all.

Oh yes you do, you need me, but I've never needed you.

Nan nan nan nah. I can't hear you. :p

Well, it is true that we need each other if we want a great city. Note I did not say that the suburbs and the city don't need each other. It's simply a matter of majority vs. minority. In a democratic organization, the majority rules. In Detroit city, blacks make up the majority. Some of the black leaders use this to their advantage by playing the race card as Hypestyles mentioned. In the metropolitan area, the suburbs make up the majority. Although the suburbs are mostly white, that really isn't my point. My point is that the political power that race mongers use to their advantage among the majority of Detroiters means nothing to the majority of the metro area.

In other words, if the minority [[i.e. Detroit) wants to get their way [[on let's say a Cobo deal), it would behoove them to take a less arrogant stance against the majority [[i.e. the suburbs).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

This is silly.

You need me more than I need you.

No, no, you need me more than I need you.

No, I don't need you at all.

Oh yes you do, you need me, but I've never needed you.

Nan nan nan nah. I can't hear you. :p

---

Yeh, but last I checked, the suburbs seem to have more money than Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Yeh, but last I checked, the suburbs seem to have more money than Detroit.

---

Like I said:

I got more money than you.

No, no, I got more money than you.

No, but I don't need your money.

Oh yes you do, you need my money, but I've never needed your money.

Nan nan nan nah. I can't hear you. :p

Since we're talking about money, I would like to propose:

The rich owe the poor.

I'm not talking about politics and I'm not talking about welfare. I'm talking about time and energy and -- yes, charity. This is not just a matter of black and white, but it is about cycles of failure. The city is in a cycle of failure that rich people in the suburbs MUST help it break out of. If the rich do not help the failing city [[especially the failing schools), then the rich are proving themselves spiritually poor and morally derelict.

The rich owe the poor.

It is not about who needs who more. It is about what it means to be a decent human being -- what it means to reach out even to a place that does not welcome you. Why would you do such a thing? Because no life is truly rich unless it touches the life of the poor.

Racism is a terrible obstacle to change. But selfishness is a greater obstacle.

The rich keep their money. That is what they are good at; to some extent it is the only thing they are good at.

Don't expect the rich to help the poor in order to be "decent human beings". Most, not all but most, rich people get rich on the backs of others. Not for nothing does it say in the Bible that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".

Your kindly old prof has known some very wealthy people, and does not envy them one bit. I've only known a couple of truly happy wealthy people. Most of them have serious issues, and if they have kids, their kids tend to be fucked up beyond your wildest imagination.

With regard to the City-suburb issue, the problem we have is this: the City pretends that it doesn't need the suburbs, which it plainly does. Meantime, the suburbs pretend that a rotting expanse of depopulation and disinvestment in the middle of all of them doesn't matter, which it plainly does. When my stepdad died of cancer, his arms and legs were perfectly healthy, but his core was destroyed. All of him died, not just the rotted-out midsection.

The first part of the title of this thread, "local leadership", is an oxymoron here. I've never seen any local leadership. Have any of you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

The rich keep their money. That is what they are good at; to some extent it is the only thing they are good at.

Don't expect the rich to help the poor in order to be "decent human beings". Most, not all but most, rich people get rich on the backs of others. Not for nothing does it say in the Bible that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".

Your kindly old prof has known some very wealthy people, and does not envy them one bit. I've only known a couple of truly happy wealthy people. Most of them have serious issues, and if they have kids, their kids tend to be fucked up beyond your wildest imagination.

---

I agree with much you say, Professor, but I think you and I define "rich" differently. In my book, if you make more than $80,000 a year, you're rich, and you need to be giving back. The middle class of America is absurdly rich, when compared to the average standard of living of humankind throughout history.

This applies to the middle class in Detroit, too. I'm sick of people using their money to take care of their own "needs". Maybe I sound like a judgmental prick, but it's better to expect too much of a person than to expect too little.

I agree with you there, Prodigal, and it doesn't hurt to expect more since you never get more than you expect. As it was put to me once, somewhat crudely, you might not get laid if you ask, but you certainly aren't gonna get laid if you don't ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

The rich keep their money. That is what they are good at; to some extent it is the only thing they are good at.

Don't expect the rich to help the poor in order to be "decent human beings". Most, not all but most, rich people get rich on the backs of others. Not for nothing does it say in the Bible that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".

Your kindly old prof has known some very wealthy people, and does not envy them one bit. I've only known a couple of truly happy wealthy people. Most of them have serious issues, and if they have kids, their kids tend to be fucked up beyond your wildest imagination.

With regard to the City-suburb issue, the problem we have is this: the City pretends that it doesn't need the suburbs, which it plainly does. Meantime, the suburbs pretend that a rotting expanse of depopulation and disinvestment in the middle of all of them doesn't matter, which it plainly does. When my stepdad died of cancer, his arms and legs were perfectly healthy, but his core was destroyed. All of him died, not just the rotted-out midsection.

The first part of the title of this thread, "local leadership", is an oxymoron here. I've never seen any local leadership. Have any of you?

---

Thank you. All this bickering over who needs who more is ridiculous. It's like arguing whether a person needs their right hand or left hand more. Maybe John Doe would prefer his right hand over his left hand but I would like to have both my hands. Teamwork is not about talking down to each other but working with your each other. Professor, school 'em!