USA Today
By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY
733 Comments
11 Recommend
Updated at 12:48 p.m. ET
Democratic congressman Jim Moran said racism was one factor in his party's losses in the 2010 midterm elections, invoking President Obama's race, slavery and the Civil War in a TV interview.
Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., on right, has blamed racism for Democratic election losses in 2010. He's pictured here with former congressman Tom Davis, R-Va.
CAPTION
By Charles Dharapak, AP
Moran, a Virginia lawmaker, told Arab network Alhurra after Obama's State of the Union Address earlier this week that "a lot of people in this country ... don't want to be governed by an African-American."
He went on to say that Democrats essentially lost the majority in the U.S. House for "the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States...the Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery."'
His comments were part of a larger interview, in which he discussed foreign policy, the economy and other issues. Moran has said that he believes concerns about jobs and the economy were the primary reasons Democrats took a drubbing at the polls.
In the biggest midterm election change since 1938, the GOP won 63 House seats -- easily eclipsing the Republican Revolution of 1994 that put Newt Gingrich in the speaker's chair.
Moran's remarks were first reported by The Weekly Standard and picked up by other news outlets.
Anne Hughes, a spokeswoman for Moran, said the congressman "was expressing his frustration" about the nation's struggle with racial equality. "Rather than ignore this issue or pretend it isn't there, the congressman believes we are better off discussing it in order to overcome it," she said in a statement.
Moran, first elected in 1990, has a history of making controversial remarks and is known for his combative personality. For example, he angered Jewish groups in 2007 by suggesting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee pushed the United States to go to war with Iraq. In the mid-1990s, Moran got into a shoving match with a Republican congressman.
The National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a news release entitled "Civility," highlighting Moran's comments.
The GOP campaign committee mentioned remarks made earlier this month by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who apologized for invoking Nazis and the Holocaust during a speech about GOP efforts to repeal the health care law, and by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, who suggested overturning the law would end up "killing Americans."
Sunday, February 6, 2011
'Oldest form of racism' rears head as attacks against Jews rise
Published Date:
03 February 2011
By Chris Bond
Yorkshire Post
Last year there were 639 reports of bigoted violence and abuse against the Jewish community.
It is the second highest number of anti-Semitic incidents ever recorded by the Community Security Trust (CST). The charity, which monitors anti-Semitism in the UK, said these included street attacks, hate mail, threats, and the vandalism and desecration of Jewish property.
Although the figures were significantly lower than 2009, when 926 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded, fuelled by the ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli forces, researchers say they reflect a continuing long-term trend.
The number of physical and verbal attacks against Jews has doubled over the past decade and John Mann, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, said the figures were a "sad and timely reminder", adding: "Our focus is absolute and we will continue to do all we can to ensure these numbers go down over the coming years."
The CST said the raid on the Gaza aid flotilla in May and prominent Jewish festivals in September led to two spikes in the number of incidents. There were 114 violent anti-Semitic attacks in the UK last year, down from 124 in 2009. But worryingly, the number of violent assaults rose as a proportion of the overall total, from 13 per cent in 2009 to 18 per cent last year.
London (219), Manchester (216), Hertfordshire (40) and Leeds (21) had the highest number of recorded anti-Semitic incidents in the country. It's no coincidence that these areas are home to four of the country's largest Jewish communities, but nevertheless the rising trend is cause for concern.
"We have this pattern that whenever there's a crisis in the Middle East involving Israel we see a rise in anti-Semitic incidents in Britain," says CST spokesman, Dave Rich. "But what I think is worrying is after 2009 we expected a big fall last year and although the number of incidents did fall by a third, the trend over the past 10 years is heading upwards and what we are seeing is street racism that is becoming more embedded."
Among the incidents reported was an assault on a Jewish man in Leeds who was standing at a cash machine when a car containing three or four men drove past. One of the occupants shouted "Jude" before they pelted him with eggs. In January last year, the words "F*** the Jews" with a swastika were drawn on a desk at Leeds University, while in Manchester a Jewish-looking man was about to get into his car when a large group of children shouted, "Hitler is coming" at him and threw a brick through his rear window.Such shocking behaviour will rightly upset people, but does the increase in the number of incidents being reported mean racial tension is rising?
"The numbers are a lot higher now and that is partly because we have become more integrated within the Jewish community, so we expected the report rate would increase. But that alone can't explain the year-on-year rise we are seeing," says Mr Rich.
"It could be because we get these spikes and the figures never quite go back to where they were before. There are different types of anti-Semitism and sometimes it relates to anti-social behaviour. It doesn't define Jewish life in this country, but it's a problem that is present for people and the more Jewish you look the more likely you are to be targeted."
Labour's Rotherham MP Denis MacShane, author of Globalising Hatred: The New Anti-Semitism, is concerned by what is happening. "Anti-Semitism has resurfaced recently in a very worrying way, so that people are attacked simply because they are Jewish, not because of the views that they hold. People are forgetting where anti-Semitism can lead, it's the oldest form of racism," he says. "It has moved away from the anti-Semitism of the 30s, but it's back out there in a way that it wasn't 25 or 30 years ago."
Which is why it still needs to be tackled. "We expose it, we report it and we don't allow it to resurface. I would like to see one of the big universities in our region starting a course dedicated to the study of anti-Semitism that looks at it in both historical and contemporary terms."
Fabian Hamilton, MP for Leeds North East (Lab), says although we are a much more tolerant and accepting society these days, there are still small pockets of communities that feed on ignorance and prejudice.
"If I talk to Jewish people about anti-Semitic crime they will say it was ever thus and ask if it is happening to others, and sadly the answer is 'yes'."
03 February 2011
By Chris Bond
Yorkshire Post
Last year there were 639 reports of bigoted violence and abuse against the Jewish community.
It is the second highest number of anti-Semitic incidents ever recorded by the Community Security Trust (CST). The charity, which monitors anti-Semitism in the UK, said these included street attacks, hate mail, threats, and the vandalism and desecration of Jewish property.
Although the figures were significantly lower than 2009, when 926 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded, fuelled by the ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli forces, researchers say they reflect a continuing long-term trend.
The number of physical and verbal attacks against Jews has doubled over the past decade and John Mann, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, said the figures were a "sad and timely reminder", adding: "Our focus is absolute and we will continue to do all we can to ensure these numbers go down over the coming years."
The CST said the raid on the Gaza aid flotilla in May and prominent Jewish festivals in September led to two spikes in the number of incidents. There were 114 violent anti-Semitic attacks in the UK last year, down from 124 in 2009. But worryingly, the number of violent assaults rose as a proportion of the overall total, from 13 per cent in 2009 to 18 per cent last year.
London (219), Manchester (216), Hertfordshire (40) and Leeds (21) had the highest number of recorded anti-Semitic incidents in the country. It's no coincidence that these areas are home to four of the country's largest Jewish communities, but nevertheless the rising trend is cause for concern.
"We have this pattern that whenever there's a crisis in the Middle East involving Israel we see a rise in anti-Semitic incidents in Britain," says CST spokesman, Dave Rich. "But what I think is worrying is after 2009 we expected a big fall last year and although the number of incidents did fall by a third, the trend over the past 10 years is heading upwards and what we are seeing is street racism that is becoming more embedded."
Among the incidents reported was an assault on a Jewish man in Leeds who was standing at a cash machine when a car containing three or four men drove past. One of the occupants shouted "Jude" before they pelted him with eggs. In January last year, the words "F*** the Jews" with a swastika were drawn on a desk at Leeds University, while in Manchester a Jewish-looking man was about to get into his car when a large group of children shouted, "Hitler is coming" at him and threw a brick through his rear window.Such shocking behaviour will rightly upset people, but does the increase in the number of incidents being reported mean racial tension is rising?
"The numbers are a lot higher now and that is partly because we have become more integrated within the Jewish community, so we expected the report rate would increase. But that alone can't explain the year-on-year rise we are seeing," says Mr Rich.
"It could be because we get these spikes and the figures never quite go back to where they were before. There are different types of anti-Semitism and sometimes it relates to anti-social behaviour. It doesn't define Jewish life in this country, but it's a problem that is present for people and the more Jewish you look the more likely you are to be targeted."
Labour's Rotherham MP Denis MacShane, author of Globalising Hatred: The New Anti-Semitism, is concerned by what is happening. "Anti-Semitism has resurfaced recently in a very worrying way, so that people are attacked simply because they are Jewish, not because of the views that they hold. People are forgetting where anti-Semitism can lead, it's the oldest form of racism," he says. "It has moved away from the anti-Semitism of the 30s, but it's back out there in a way that it wasn't 25 or 30 years ago."
Which is why it still needs to be tackled. "We expose it, we report it and we don't allow it to resurface. I would like to see one of the big universities in our region starting a course dedicated to the study of anti-Semitism that looks at it in both historical and contemporary terms."
Fabian Hamilton, MP for Leeds North East (Lab), says although we are a much more tolerant and accepting society these days, there are still small pockets of communities that feed on ignorance and prejudice.
"If I talk to Jewish people about anti-Semitic crime they will say it was ever thus and ask if it is happening to others, and sadly the answer is 'yes'."
OH Gov Kasich Faces Racism Charges: Hires All-White Cabinet
February 4, 2011 by Desiree Washington
from Popdecay
Ohio’s newly elected Republican Governor John Kasich came under heavy fire this week for hiring an all White cabinet. When confronted with his failure to hire any persons of color to do the “people’s work,” the Republican said “I don’t need your people.” By “you people,” he was referring to African-Americans, according to Democratic State Sen. Nina Turner, who witnessed the statement first hand.
But Kasich’s spokesperson said the Governor has been misquoted and that the comment at issue was merely intended as a partisan attack. Kasich meant to say: ”‘Your people are Democrats, we don’t need them on our cabinet, ” says Kasich’s representative. Even if this defensive statement is true, Kasich’s explanation does not settle why he has no people of color in his cabinet. After all, the former Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, is Republican.
The governor was a commentator on Fox News Channel, hosting “Heartland with John Kasich,” from 2001 to 2007. In the 2010 Ohio gubernatorial election, Kasich helped Republicans give Democrats a “shellacking,” narrowly defeated Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland.
from Popdecay
Ohio’s newly elected Republican Governor John Kasich came under heavy fire this week for hiring an all White cabinet. When confronted with his failure to hire any persons of color to do the “people’s work,” the Republican said “I don’t need your people.” By “you people,” he was referring to African-Americans, according to Democratic State Sen. Nina Turner, who witnessed the statement first hand.
But Kasich’s spokesperson said the Governor has been misquoted and that the comment at issue was merely intended as a partisan attack. Kasich meant to say: ”‘Your people are Democrats, we don’t need them on our cabinet, ” says Kasich’s representative. Even if this defensive statement is true, Kasich’s explanation does not settle why he has no people of color in his cabinet. After all, the former Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, is Republican.
The governor was a commentator on Fox News Channel, hosting “Heartland with John Kasich,” from 2001 to 2007. In the 2010 Ohio gubernatorial election, Kasich helped Republicans give Democrats a “shellacking,” narrowly defeated Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland.
It’s the Dog That’s Racist: Discovering the Legend of White Dog
By Sexual Correspondent Andrea (AJ) Plaid
I’m glad I saw the legend, at least.
I had heard about Samuel Fuller’s film White Dog in whispers, like a deeper-than-the-FBI-and-the-Illuminati-plotting-in-Area-51 conspiracy theory among my more “conscious” Black acquaintances — mostly because the film was banned, though no one ever said exactly why.
Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I attended a screening of the film at the the Maysles Cinema in Harlem, hosted by the the Ego Trip hip hop collective – who are, in full disclosure, the R editrix’s heroes – as part of the movie’s house series, “I See White People,” billed in the theater’s program as a “quarterly series on the visibility of white racism, white privilege, and unacknowledged white culture.” Ego Trip’s Chairman Jefferson Mao added, deadpan, that the film was chosen because “we’re fans of the racist dog horror genre.”
To say the film’s history is “complex” should qualify it as one of the word’s understated synonyms. The history of the book upon which it’s based would qualify as another synonym. Spoilers and highlights from a Q&A discussion Ego Trip hosted after the screening are under the cut. (If you have a slightly deeper quick-and-dirty curiosity, read here.)
SPOILERS AHEAD
The plot is rather simple: Julie, a young white actor (played by 80s teen star Kristy McNichol) decides to adopt a white German shepherd she hit during a nighttime drive. She thinks the dog is the perfect pet. However, other people suss something’s wrong with it, starting with the actor’s white boyfriend (Jameson Parker). What’s wrong is the white dog is a “white dog,” a canine trained to lethally attack Black people, from the sanitation worker to the actor’s Black co-star to a random pedestrian.
When Julie finally recognizes this, she sends the dog to a wild-animal training refuge for re-education. The refuge’s owners are divided on what to do with it: Carruthers (Burl Ives), a white man, tells her the dog is a lost cause; Keys (Paul Winfield), a black man, reluctantly, then determinedly, tries to reform it.
Keys also explains to Julie that the dog’s behavior was probably the result of conditioning: the original owner paid homeless and/or drug-addicted Black people to abuse the dog when it was younger, to the point that the dog was conditioned to associate Black people and being attacked. This is underscored by an encounter between Julie and the owner, an older white man and his two granddaughters. Later, the dog, retrained to not attack Black people, hesitates about attacking Julie, then turns and runs towards Carruthers in teeth-baring mode. The dog leaps, and Keys shoots.
Director Roman Polanski was hired to direct White Dog in 1975 before his being brought up on statutory rape charges led him to leave the U.S. Six years and several creative teams later, screenwriter Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential), who was to have worked with Polanski, and director Samuel Fuller took on the project (with the encouragement, curiously, of ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner.)
At the time, the NAACP, along with other civil-right leaders and organizations, expressed concern that the film would spark racial violence, questioned using a book written by a white man (and a “pulpy” book at that), and criticized Paramount for hiring the mostly white film crew. The studio brought in two Black consultants to critique the Black characters. One, a vice-president at the local PBS station, said he found nothing wrong with the depictions; the other, an NAACP vice-president, thought the film would aggravate race relations in light of the Atlanta child murders occurring at the time.
Fearing a NAACP-threatened boycott, the studio shelved the project without telling Fuller. Infuriated by Paramount’s action, Fuller moved to France and “never directed another American film.” White Dog was theatrically released in France and the U.K. to positive reviews in 1982. The first time the movie appeared in wide release in the U.S. was as an edited-for-TV movie for cable in 1983. NBC planned to broadcast White Dog in 1984, but scrubbed the plan due to continued pressure from the NAACP. At best, some people may have caught the flick in the subsequent years in art-house movie houses and at film festivals. Finally, the Criterion Collection released White Dog on DVD in 2008.
The ensuing Q&A became a fascinating discussion of why the dog would have become such a trigger for the NAACP’s fear. As Ego Trip’s Gabriel Alvarez noted, “Using the dog to symbolize racism is interesting because the dog is seen as part of family.”
One audience member said that, because of the furor surrounding the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal, the pop consciousness around dogs and African-Americans, especially men, would drastically alter White Dog’s reception if released today — especially in light of Keys having to kill the dog at film’s end. Other audience contributions from that night:
* “The symbol of dog is ingrained into the consciousness of Black people with the civil rights movements with dogs and hoses.”
* “I remember hearing about an MLK park where some people wanted to have a dog park. But it became a big issue along racial lines. What I found out was Black people felt it was disrespectful to have a dog park in a park named after MLK due to the history of dogs and Blacks and violence.”
* “What the movie shows is that there’s a need to be truth and there needs to be reconciliation. What I’ve noticed is that young white people need to be aggressive with their parents regarding racism.”
* “I want to know from white people how can white people facilitate change….”
* “By creating such things as film. Yeah, the film is cheesy, but there’s also a film language that Fuller uses.”
* “What people need to do is to understand and deconstruct that the country has been founded on inequality.”
The discussion turned to how the film dealt with racism itself, a topic I engaged in with Jefferson:
Me: It was a very ’80s message film.
The moderator responded that White Dog was “straightforward” about white racism.
Me: It was straightforward because it was the ’80s. So the racism was (more) obvious, so the message was obvious. Now it’s morphed into Glenn Beckian ‘I can be racist, but don’t call me a racist.’
Jefferson: Stylistically, it’s very 80s. But it was ahead of its time. Fuller’s career was interesting. He was known for a lot of B movies but tried to sneak in social issues. Yes, it’s 80s exploitation, but there are powerful moments, like the child getting whisked away while the dog is hunting.
Me: But saying that it’s very 80s isn’t a slag, but a simple observation.
After the Q&A, I shared my opinion with Gabriel that every decade has a “message” film about racism that is reflective of not only of time period stylistically, but also where ideas about racism were and are. The 80s had White Dog and John Sayles’ Brother from Another Planet. The 90s had John Sayles’ Lone Star, Anthony Drazan’s Zebrahead, and Tony Kaye’s American History X. All of them were “race message films” that were very much of their time.
Exiting the theater that night, I noted the strange irony — and hope – of the series being housed in an indie theater located in the nexus of white-gentrifying Harlem. Perhaps this series is a good tonic, if not a great meeting point, for whites and the PoCs left in Harlem to gather to talk about the transitioning nabe and how well-off whites gentrifying it isn’t simply viewed as a “the neighborhood changing” so much as a blithe takeover, fortified by unaddressed white privilege, of a perceived spiritual and physical home of some Black people and our allies in the US and the world. However, considering that two white couples who came to watch the flick left as soon as the film was over—and, as a result, tipped the Q&A audience to majority people of color. We’ll see.
The Maysles Cinema crew wants to take their “I See White People” series on tour. Next stop: Brooklyn, NY.
I’m glad I saw the legend, at least.
I had heard about Samuel Fuller’s film White Dog in whispers, like a deeper-than-the-FBI-and-the-Illuminati-plotting-in-Area-51 conspiracy theory among my more “conscious” Black acquaintances — mostly because the film was banned, though no one ever said exactly why.
Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I attended a screening of the film at the the Maysles Cinema in Harlem, hosted by the the Ego Trip hip hop collective – who are, in full disclosure, the R editrix’s heroes – as part of the movie’s house series, “I See White People,” billed in the theater’s program as a “quarterly series on the visibility of white racism, white privilege, and unacknowledged white culture.” Ego Trip’s Chairman Jefferson Mao added, deadpan, that the film was chosen because “we’re fans of the racist dog horror genre.”
To say the film’s history is “complex” should qualify it as one of the word’s understated synonyms. The history of the book upon which it’s based would qualify as another synonym. Spoilers and highlights from a Q&A discussion Ego Trip hosted after the screening are under the cut. (If you have a slightly deeper quick-and-dirty curiosity, read here.)
SPOILERS AHEAD
The plot is rather simple: Julie, a young white actor (played by 80s teen star Kristy McNichol) decides to adopt a white German shepherd she hit during a nighttime drive. She thinks the dog is the perfect pet. However, other people suss something’s wrong with it, starting with the actor’s white boyfriend (Jameson Parker). What’s wrong is the white dog is a “white dog,” a canine trained to lethally attack Black people, from the sanitation worker to the actor’s Black co-star to a random pedestrian.
When Julie finally recognizes this, she sends the dog to a wild-animal training refuge for re-education. The refuge’s owners are divided on what to do with it: Carruthers (Burl Ives), a white man, tells her the dog is a lost cause; Keys (Paul Winfield), a black man, reluctantly, then determinedly, tries to reform it.
Keys also explains to Julie that the dog’s behavior was probably the result of conditioning: the original owner paid homeless and/or drug-addicted Black people to abuse the dog when it was younger, to the point that the dog was conditioned to associate Black people and being attacked. This is underscored by an encounter between Julie and the owner, an older white man and his two granddaughters. Later, the dog, retrained to not attack Black people, hesitates about attacking Julie, then turns and runs towards Carruthers in teeth-baring mode. The dog leaps, and Keys shoots.
Director Roman Polanski was hired to direct White Dog in 1975 before his being brought up on statutory rape charges led him to leave the U.S. Six years and several creative teams later, screenwriter Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential), who was to have worked with Polanski, and director Samuel Fuller took on the project (with the encouragement, curiously, of ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner.)
At the time, the NAACP, along with other civil-right leaders and organizations, expressed concern that the film would spark racial violence, questioned using a book written by a white man (and a “pulpy” book at that), and criticized Paramount for hiring the mostly white film crew. The studio brought in two Black consultants to critique the Black characters. One, a vice-president at the local PBS station, said he found nothing wrong with the depictions; the other, an NAACP vice-president, thought the film would aggravate race relations in light of the Atlanta child murders occurring at the time.
Fearing a NAACP-threatened boycott, the studio shelved the project without telling Fuller. Infuriated by Paramount’s action, Fuller moved to France and “never directed another American film.” White Dog was theatrically released in France and the U.K. to positive reviews in 1982. The first time the movie appeared in wide release in the U.S. was as an edited-for-TV movie for cable in 1983. NBC planned to broadcast White Dog in 1984, but scrubbed the plan due to continued pressure from the NAACP. At best, some people may have caught the flick in the subsequent years in art-house movie houses and at film festivals. Finally, the Criterion Collection released White Dog on DVD in 2008.
The ensuing Q&A became a fascinating discussion of why the dog would have become such a trigger for the NAACP’s fear. As Ego Trip’s Gabriel Alvarez noted, “Using the dog to symbolize racism is interesting because the dog is seen as part of family.”
One audience member said that, because of the furor surrounding the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal, the pop consciousness around dogs and African-Americans, especially men, would drastically alter White Dog’s reception if released today — especially in light of Keys having to kill the dog at film’s end. Other audience contributions from that night:
* “The symbol of dog is ingrained into the consciousness of Black people with the civil rights movements with dogs and hoses.”
* “I remember hearing about an MLK park where some people wanted to have a dog park. But it became a big issue along racial lines. What I found out was Black people felt it was disrespectful to have a dog park in a park named after MLK due to the history of dogs and Blacks and violence.”
* “What the movie shows is that there’s a need to be truth and there needs to be reconciliation. What I’ve noticed is that young white people need to be aggressive with their parents regarding racism.”
* “I want to know from white people how can white people facilitate change….”
* “By creating such things as film. Yeah, the film is cheesy, but there’s also a film language that Fuller uses.”
* “What people need to do is to understand and deconstruct that the country has been founded on inequality.”
The discussion turned to how the film dealt with racism itself, a topic I engaged in with Jefferson:
Me: It was a very ’80s message film.
The moderator responded that White Dog was “straightforward” about white racism.
Me: It was straightforward because it was the ’80s. So the racism was (more) obvious, so the message was obvious. Now it’s morphed into Glenn Beckian ‘I can be racist, but don’t call me a racist.’
Jefferson: Stylistically, it’s very 80s. But it was ahead of its time. Fuller’s career was interesting. He was known for a lot of B movies but tried to sneak in social issues. Yes, it’s 80s exploitation, but there are powerful moments, like the child getting whisked away while the dog is hunting.
Me: But saying that it’s very 80s isn’t a slag, but a simple observation.
After the Q&A, I shared my opinion with Gabriel that every decade has a “message” film about racism that is reflective of not only of time period stylistically, but also where ideas about racism were and are. The 80s had White Dog and John Sayles’ Brother from Another Planet. The 90s had John Sayles’ Lone Star, Anthony Drazan’s Zebrahead, and Tony Kaye’s American History X. All of them were “race message films” that were very much of their time.
Exiting the theater that night, I noted the strange irony — and hope – of the series being housed in an indie theater located in the nexus of white-gentrifying Harlem. Perhaps this series is a good tonic, if not a great meeting point, for whites and the PoCs left in Harlem to gather to talk about the transitioning nabe and how well-off whites gentrifying it isn’t simply viewed as a “the neighborhood changing” so much as a blithe takeover, fortified by unaddressed white privilege, of a perceived spiritual and physical home of some Black people and our allies in the US and the world. However, considering that two white couples who came to watch the flick left as soon as the film was over—and, as a result, tipped the Q&A audience to majority people of color. We’ll see.
The Maysles Cinema crew wants to take their “I See White People” series on tour. Next stop: Brooklyn, NY.
Top Gear Goes From Zero to Racist in Under Two Minutes
By Arturo R. García
Racialicious
Top Gear, the long-running British auto review show, is built upon a foundation of “guy talk.” But an outburst by the show’s three hosts this week once again crossed the line from mildly boorish to positively unnerving, this time prompting a political response.
The incident occurred during Sunday’s episode, when the trio – Richard Hammond, Jeremy Clarkson and James May (above l-r) – turned a review of a Mexican sports car into an exercise in racist “banter” about the country and its’ people. Video and transcript are under the cut.
And here’s a transcript of the segment:
James May: Have you ever wanted a Mexican sports car?
Jeremy Clarkson: Yes, I have!
JM: It’s good news, because there is one, and here it is [points to display] and it’s called the Tortilla.
JC: It is not – it is not called the Tortilla! What is it?
JM: I can’t remember, it’s something a bit …
JC: So you just made up the name, then, there you go.
JM: I’d forgotten, sorry
Richard Hammond: Why would you want a Mexican car? ‘Cause cars reflect national characteristics. So German cars are sort of very [unintelligible] and Italian cars, a bit flamboyant and quick. Mexican cars just gonna be lazy, feckless, flatulent, overweight, leaning against a fence asleep looking at a cactus with a blanket with a hole in the middle on as a coat.
JM: It is interesting because, they can’t do food, the Mexicans, can they? ‘Cause it’s all like sick with cheese on it.
RH: Refried sick!
JM: Yeah, refried sick.
JC: How much is this Mexican sports car?
JH: The refried Mexican sports car is 33 thousand pounds.
JC: That isn’t enough. It isn’t enough because somebody’s paid for that to be developed and it’s gotta be shipped. That’s 800 quid to the car right there.
JM: You say that, though, but they do say in their blurb it’s got rack-and-pinion steering.
RH: Wow, it’s got steering!
RH: I’m sorry, but just imagine waking up and remembering you’re Mexican.
JC: It’d be brilliant! It’d be brilliant ’cause you could just go straight back to sleep again.
RH: ‘That’s all I’m gonna do all day.’
JC: That’s why we’re not gonna get any complaints about this – ’cause the Mexican embassy, the ambassador’s gonna be sitting there with a remote control like this. [Clarkson slumps in his seat and starts "snoring."] They won’t complain. It’s fine!
In fact, the Mexican ambassador to the United Kingdom, Eduardo Medina-Mora Icaza, called Clarkson’s bluff, writing to the BBC to demand a public apology from Clarkson and his cohorts. From Icaza’s letter, as quoted in The Guardian:
The presenters of the programme resorted to outrageous, vulgar and inexcusable insults to stir bigoted feelings against the Mexican people, their culture as well as their official representative in the United Kingdom …
These offensive, xenophobic and humiliating remarks serve only to reinforce negative stereotypes and perpetuate prejudice against Mexico and its people.
Having caught the show off and on over the years, what bothered me the most about this bit was that it really seemed different from many of their usual chats. Clarkson, in particular, will rip on cars from other European countries, but it’s at least presented in a more jovial manner, and directed at the auto makers, not their nationality. But the car was an afterthought here, and Hammond’s line about “remembering you’re Mexican” was delivered with a disturbing amount of flair. (SPOILERS for Mr. Hammond: I remember that every day, and it doesn’t get in the way of my workday.)
Moreover, this incident continues a recent trend of foot-in-mouth incidents for the show, and Clarkson in particular. Last year, he was chided by a British blind-person’s group for calling then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown “a one-eyed Scottish idiot” at a stage show in Australia. And two years ago, he had the remarkably bad idea of making a joke about lorry drivers killing prostitutes not long after a forklift driver was convicted in the murder of five prostitutes.
A BBC spokesperson told The Guardian it will respond directly to the ambassador regarding the matter.
Racialicious
Top Gear, the long-running British auto review show, is built upon a foundation of “guy talk.” But an outburst by the show’s three hosts this week once again crossed the line from mildly boorish to positively unnerving, this time prompting a political response.
The incident occurred during Sunday’s episode, when the trio – Richard Hammond, Jeremy Clarkson and James May (above l-r) – turned a review of a Mexican sports car into an exercise in racist “banter” about the country and its’ people. Video and transcript are under the cut.
And here’s a transcript of the segment:
James May: Have you ever wanted a Mexican sports car?
Jeremy Clarkson: Yes, I have!
JM: It’s good news, because there is one, and here it is [points to display] and it’s called the Tortilla.
JC: It is not – it is not called the Tortilla! What is it?
JM: I can’t remember, it’s something a bit …
JC: So you just made up the name, then, there you go.
JM: I’d forgotten, sorry
Richard Hammond: Why would you want a Mexican car? ‘Cause cars reflect national characteristics. So German cars are sort of very [unintelligible] and Italian cars, a bit flamboyant and quick. Mexican cars just gonna be lazy, feckless, flatulent, overweight, leaning against a fence asleep looking at a cactus with a blanket with a hole in the middle on as a coat.
JM: It is interesting because, they can’t do food, the Mexicans, can they? ‘Cause it’s all like sick with cheese on it.
RH: Refried sick!
JM: Yeah, refried sick.
JC: How much is this Mexican sports car?
JH: The refried Mexican sports car is 33 thousand pounds.
JC: That isn’t enough. It isn’t enough because somebody’s paid for that to be developed and it’s gotta be shipped. That’s 800 quid to the car right there.
JM: You say that, though, but they do say in their blurb it’s got rack-and-pinion steering.
RH: Wow, it’s got steering!
RH: I’m sorry, but just imagine waking up and remembering you’re Mexican.
JC: It’d be brilliant! It’d be brilliant ’cause you could just go straight back to sleep again.
RH: ‘That’s all I’m gonna do all day.’
JC: That’s why we’re not gonna get any complaints about this – ’cause the Mexican embassy, the ambassador’s gonna be sitting there with a remote control like this. [Clarkson slumps in his seat and starts "snoring."] They won’t complain. It’s fine!
In fact, the Mexican ambassador to the United Kingdom, Eduardo Medina-Mora Icaza, called Clarkson’s bluff, writing to the BBC to demand a public apology from Clarkson and his cohorts. From Icaza’s letter, as quoted in The Guardian:
The presenters of the programme resorted to outrageous, vulgar and inexcusable insults to stir bigoted feelings against the Mexican people, their culture as well as their official representative in the United Kingdom …
These offensive, xenophobic and humiliating remarks serve only to reinforce negative stereotypes and perpetuate prejudice against Mexico and its people.
Having caught the show off and on over the years, what bothered me the most about this bit was that it really seemed different from many of their usual chats. Clarkson, in particular, will rip on cars from other European countries, but it’s at least presented in a more jovial manner, and directed at the auto makers, not their nationality. But the car was an afterthought here, and Hammond’s line about “remembering you’re Mexican” was delivered with a disturbing amount of flair. (SPOILERS for Mr. Hammond: I remember that every day, and it doesn’t get in the way of my workday.)
Moreover, this incident continues a recent trend of foot-in-mouth incidents for the show, and Clarkson in particular. Last year, he was chided by a British blind-person’s group for calling then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown “a one-eyed Scottish idiot” at a stage show in Australia. And two years ago, he had the remarkably bad idea of making a joke about lorry drivers killing prostitutes not long after a forklift driver was convicted in the murder of five prostitutes.
A BBC spokesperson told The Guardian it will respond directly to the ambassador regarding the matter.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Black population drops to 3.9% in San Francisco
by Macio Lyons
Members of the Osiris Coalition celebrate at City Hall after the historic passage of the Construction Local Hiring ordinance – from left, Carl Augustine, Macio Lyons, Ed Donaldson, Greg Doxey and Omar Khalif. Good jobs are essential to stop the hemorrhaging of Blacks from San Francisco.
Well, folks, I just heard another disturbing percentage as it pertains to Black people in the city of San Francisco the other day. Preliminary numbers are in from the 2010 Census.
Estimates put the remaining African American population for the city of San Francisco at around 3.9 percent! I hope that is just a low-ball estimate and those numbers will be revised upward, but still, my question is how did we get to this point?
Why are we leaving this city in such droves? Why isn’t City Hall doing more to stop the mass exodus of African Americans from this city? There was “The African American Out-Migration Report” commissioned in 2009 by Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, but there has been little in the way of policies by either of the two to stem the tide. If this was taking place with any other ethnic group, a citywide state of emergency would have been declared.
When I heard those numbers, I immediately put up a post on Facebook declaring my frustration. From there a great conversation started. Many people began to weigh in on what the problems were and what some of the solutions could be.
Mr. Kip Fuller, a Western Addition resident who owns an insurance business that offers State Farm Insurance, touted the importance of Blacks patronizing Black-owned businesses. He pointed to the Chinese community and their successful model and how as a group they have grown and thrived in this city.
He also made the assertion that many Black professionals sold their homes in San Francisco and relocated to places like Antioch, where they thought they were getting more house for their money. This is also true, but I think it is a lot more complex than just that.
While many Black homeowners made the move to other cities willingly, they weren’t the majority of our population. Historically, a very large percentage of our numbers have been based in public housing. As it stands now, about 50 percent of those who remain live in public housing.
[2]
The Osiris Coalition and allies hold a press conference at Third Street and Oakdale to launch the Student First initiative, which will be on the November ballot. Among the crowd are Malia Cohen, Calvin Louie, Teresa Duque, Omar Khalif, Greg Doxey, Ed Donaldson, Macio Lyons and Geoffrea Simpson-Morris.
Seeing that the housing projects in San Francisco are going the way of the dinosaur, what does that mean for our people who live there? The powers that be have had a long standing practice of systematic gentrification – i.e., dismantling public housing and only allowing a small number to return once the new units are built.
One of the tactics was making the re-entry requirements too stringent for them to return. Another practice of the City and the Housing Authority was to dangle the Section 8 carrot in front of people. Who could resist the opportunity to move to the suburbs and live in a 2,000 square foot house for $150 a month? There’s only a limited amount of affordable housing in San Francisco, and 80 percent of landlords don’t want anything to do with Section 8. Thus we have flight to places like Antioch, Pittsburg, Vallejo, Fairfield, Stockton etc.
While many Black homeowners made the move to other cities willingly, they weren’t the majority of our population.
Another tactic that is now being employed is gang injunctions. This in many cases breaks up families, and if the tenants are found to be in violation of the injunction, they themselves will be evicted.
There have also been many complaints of frivolous eviction policies by the SFHA for some of the most trivial reasons. Right now there is a very important piece of legislation about to come to a vote before the Board of Supervisors that will address this disturbing practice. The proposed bill is known as “The Right to Remain” and was shaped in large part by Osiris Coalition members and sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. This law will add many protections for the current residents and ensure their return as long as they left in “good standing,” and we are still working to make sure that bar isn’t set prohibitively high for most current tenants.
[3]
The Osiris Coalition – Omar Khalif, Ed Donaldson, Macio Lyons and Greg Doxey – meets with the Allen Group to discuss private workforce opportunities for the community.
According to some other disturbing numbers, we have close to 1,800 people returning from prison to Bayview Hunters Point every year. Where are they going to live? In many cases they can’t return to public housing because there are certain restrictions against people with felonies living in HUD-subsidized housing.
Some are also under these gang injunctions. Many of their relatives run the risk and have been evicted for allowing former prisoners to stay with them.
It is understandable that authorities want to stop the violence, but to ban someone from one area without addressing their issues only makes them someone else’s problem where they land. Look at the rising crime and murder rates for the suburban Bay Area cities that have received many of our former residents because of gentrification and recolonization.
Of these 1,800 or so parolees, 71 percent – 1,278 – will return to prison within a year of being released! This is due to the lack of economic opportunities. And that is one of the reasons the new Construction Local Hiring legislation is so important.
It will be imperative that we stay on top of City Hall and insist that the community remains a part of the equation in seeing that the new law is implemented fairly and correctly. Our community-based organizations need to step up to the plate in linking this population with services and job readiness training or they WILL re-offend!
BVHP gets around $110 million a year in funding for community-based organizations (CBOs), but, I ask, what is the impact? There is also a need to make sure that the community benefits agreement between the Alliance for District 10 and Lennar (AD-10 Lennar CBA) money earmarked for job training, affordable housing, and other community benefits is not squandered on misguided ventures like land trusts – look at the failure of Oakland’s land trust experiment! – or put in the hands of the usual suspects with no measurable accountability or outcomes.
With all of this talk about Gov. Brown dissolving the Redevelopment Agency in its current form, I think there is a great opportunity for the City of San Francisco to re-create the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency into an entity that is geared towards creating the benefits it was supposed to bring to the residents of the project areas it targets.
[4]
The Osiris Coalition and allies turn in the signatures at City Hall for placing the Students First for Quality Neighborhood Schools initiative on the November ballot.
Isn’t that what a redevelopment agency is supposed to do: Revitalize and rebuild the project area to stimulate economic activity and create workforce and business opportunities for those in the project area? Is that what we saw in the Fillmore? Yes, but for who? Was it for the benefit of those who lived there, or was it a land grab while the Black population was scattered to the four winds?
Bayview Hunters Point is the largest redevelopment area in San Francisco, and if the SFRA was revamped and put under City jurisdiction and was accountable to us, then all of the redevelopment going on in this area would fall under the 50 percent Construction Local Hiring Law. One of the biggest misconceptions is that the 50 percent mandate covers everything that is going on over here, but the fact is it doesn’t!
The redevelopment projects are exempt from the 50 percent mandate. While the SFRA does have a 50 percent Local Hire goal, it is based on “good faith.” Well, we see how that “good faith” is working out for us, right? I think that a locally accountable and controlled redevelopment agency is definitely worth exploring.
The lack of public safety is another great concern. Who wants to spend $450,000 on a house then have to worry about someone doing an armed home invasion or catching a stray bullet? The police’s response to the crime problem has been cookie-cutter and does nothing in the way of preventive solutions. Their answer has been to “lock ‘em up.” They come in to pick up the bodies after it’s over.
There is a strong belief in some circles that the rampant violence and lawlessness that went on during the mid ‘80s up until recently was allowed to continue unchecked by the “powers that be” so that we would remove OURSELVES from this city. Many of our population fled San Francisco to escape the violence and heartache of the loss of loved ones to street violence.
The last item that I want to mention, which probably should have been mentioned first, since this is what it all begins with, is education, or should I say the lack of quality public education in this city. Bayview Hunters Point has some of the worst performing schools in the City. This is due in large part to lack of proper funding. So what has the SFUSD’s response been? Bus our young residents all over the City to so-called “better” schools. This policy creates a number of problems:
[5]
Macio Lyons of the Osiris Coalition and the Southeast Community Development Corp., far right, Joshua Arce of the Brightline Defense Project, left, and Vincent Pan and another representative from Chinese for Affirmative Action hold a press conference at CAA headquarters for the unveiling of the telling report, “The Failure of Good Faith,” which made the case for local hire.
1. People from other parts of the city don’t want our kids coming into their neighborhoods and schools, so this creates an environment of mistrust and suspicion. The moment our kids do anything wrong, they are dealt with very heavy-handedly, and in many cases are criminalized.
2. If a child’s school is all the way on the other side of town, it creates a hardship for low-income parents to go up to the school and be hands-on in their child’s education. It is also very difficult for concerned parents to stay engaged and, if need be, hold their child’s teachers and school administrators accountable. The SFUSD’s school assignment system is one of the most confusing in the country to navigate.
3. While schools are to some extent tied to the property tax rolls, the money follows the children! So wherever that child goes to school, the money allocated for their education will go with them. This means that the money is following our children out of our neighborhood schools, where it is desperately needed. And it leads back to a very important question: Why can’t every neighborhood have their own quality neighborhood schools? Schools in close proximity to students’ homes will foster more parental involvement and reduce excessive absences and truancy. It may even reduce some of the gang violence and “set trippin’” over time, because these kids will be around each other. It’s a lot easier for them to hurt someone they don’t know, even if he only lives around the corner. Once upon a time they would’ve gone to the same school, but that’s not necessarily true anymore with the current school assignment procedures in place.
Osiris Coalition members were instrumental in helping to get the “Students First for Quality Neighborhood Schools” initiative introduced and on the ballot for this coming November. This bill, if passed, will give back to San Francisco parents more control in school choice for their children and put quality schools back in their own neighborhood. This is imperative for Bayview Hunters Point children, because they are suffering the most. Just look at our dismal truancy, special education and high school graduation rates.
There are so many variables to the problems we are facing in this city. We have to come together and find solutions to these problems because only WE can save ourselves! We need to focus on identifying all of the variables in order to counter them to preserve the remaining population, and create a situation that will make it attractive enough for many of those who left to return. Our mission is to push a political agenda that will benefit African Americans in this city.
Members of the Osiris Coalition celebrate at City Hall after the historic passage of the Construction Local Hiring ordinance – from left, Carl Augustine, Macio Lyons, Ed Donaldson, Greg Doxey and Omar Khalif. Good jobs are essential to stop the hemorrhaging of Blacks from San Francisco.
Well, folks, I just heard another disturbing percentage as it pertains to Black people in the city of San Francisco the other day. Preliminary numbers are in from the 2010 Census.
Estimates put the remaining African American population for the city of San Francisco at around 3.9 percent! I hope that is just a low-ball estimate and those numbers will be revised upward, but still, my question is how did we get to this point?
Why are we leaving this city in such droves? Why isn’t City Hall doing more to stop the mass exodus of African Americans from this city? There was “The African American Out-Migration Report” commissioned in 2009 by Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, but there has been little in the way of policies by either of the two to stem the tide. If this was taking place with any other ethnic group, a citywide state of emergency would have been declared.
When I heard those numbers, I immediately put up a post on Facebook declaring my frustration. From there a great conversation started. Many people began to weigh in on what the problems were and what some of the solutions could be.
Mr. Kip Fuller, a Western Addition resident who owns an insurance business that offers State Farm Insurance, touted the importance of Blacks patronizing Black-owned businesses. He pointed to the Chinese community and their successful model and how as a group they have grown and thrived in this city.
He also made the assertion that many Black professionals sold their homes in San Francisco and relocated to places like Antioch, where they thought they were getting more house for their money. This is also true, but I think it is a lot more complex than just that.
While many Black homeowners made the move to other cities willingly, they weren’t the majority of our population. Historically, a very large percentage of our numbers have been based in public housing. As it stands now, about 50 percent of those who remain live in public housing.
[2]
The Osiris Coalition and allies hold a press conference at Third Street and Oakdale to launch the Student First initiative, which will be on the November ballot. Among the crowd are Malia Cohen, Calvin Louie, Teresa Duque, Omar Khalif, Greg Doxey, Ed Donaldson, Macio Lyons and Geoffrea Simpson-Morris.
Seeing that the housing projects in San Francisco are going the way of the dinosaur, what does that mean for our people who live there? The powers that be have had a long standing practice of systematic gentrification – i.e., dismantling public housing and only allowing a small number to return once the new units are built.
One of the tactics was making the re-entry requirements too stringent for them to return. Another practice of the City and the Housing Authority was to dangle the Section 8 carrot in front of people. Who could resist the opportunity to move to the suburbs and live in a 2,000 square foot house for $150 a month? There’s only a limited amount of affordable housing in San Francisco, and 80 percent of landlords don’t want anything to do with Section 8. Thus we have flight to places like Antioch, Pittsburg, Vallejo, Fairfield, Stockton etc.
While many Black homeowners made the move to other cities willingly, they weren’t the majority of our population.
Another tactic that is now being employed is gang injunctions. This in many cases breaks up families, and if the tenants are found to be in violation of the injunction, they themselves will be evicted.
There have also been many complaints of frivolous eviction policies by the SFHA for some of the most trivial reasons. Right now there is a very important piece of legislation about to come to a vote before the Board of Supervisors that will address this disturbing practice. The proposed bill is known as “The Right to Remain” and was shaped in large part by Osiris Coalition members and sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. This law will add many protections for the current residents and ensure their return as long as they left in “good standing,” and we are still working to make sure that bar isn’t set prohibitively high for most current tenants.
[3]
The Osiris Coalition – Omar Khalif, Ed Donaldson, Macio Lyons and Greg Doxey – meets with the Allen Group to discuss private workforce opportunities for the community.
According to some other disturbing numbers, we have close to 1,800 people returning from prison to Bayview Hunters Point every year. Where are they going to live? In many cases they can’t return to public housing because there are certain restrictions against people with felonies living in HUD-subsidized housing.
Some are also under these gang injunctions. Many of their relatives run the risk and have been evicted for allowing former prisoners to stay with them.
It is understandable that authorities want to stop the violence, but to ban someone from one area without addressing their issues only makes them someone else’s problem where they land. Look at the rising crime and murder rates for the suburban Bay Area cities that have received many of our former residents because of gentrification and recolonization.
Of these 1,800 or so parolees, 71 percent – 1,278 – will return to prison within a year of being released! This is due to the lack of economic opportunities. And that is one of the reasons the new Construction Local Hiring legislation is so important.
It will be imperative that we stay on top of City Hall and insist that the community remains a part of the equation in seeing that the new law is implemented fairly and correctly. Our community-based organizations need to step up to the plate in linking this population with services and job readiness training or they WILL re-offend!
BVHP gets around $110 million a year in funding for community-based organizations (CBOs), but, I ask, what is the impact? There is also a need to make sure that the community benefits agreement between the Alliance for District 10 and Lennar (AD-10 Lennar CBA) money earmarked for job training, affordable housing, and other community benefits is not squandered on misguided ventures like land trusts – look at the failure of Oakland’s land trust experiment! – or put in the hands of the usual suspects with no measurable accountability or outcomes.
With all of this talk about Gov. Brown dissolving the Redevelopment Agency in its current form, I think there is a great opportunity for the City of San Francisco to re-create the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency into an entity that is geared towards creating the benefits it was supposed to bring to the residents of the project areas it targets.
[4]
The Osiris Coalition and allies turn in the signatures at City Hall for placing the Students First for Quality Neighborhood Schools initiative on the November ballot.
Isn’t that what a redevelopment agency is supposed to do: Revitalize and rebuild the project area to stimulate economic activity and create workforce and business opportunities for those in the project area? Is that what we saw in the Fillmore? Yes, but for who? Was it for the benefit of those who lived there, or was it a land grab while the Black population was scattered to the four winds?
Bayview Hunters Point is the largest redevelopment area in San Francisco, and if the SFRA was revamped and put under City jurisdiction and was accountable to us, then all of the redevelopment going on in this area would fall under the 50 percent Construction Local Hiring Law. One of the biggest misconceptions is that the 50 percent mandate covers everything that is going on over here, but the fact is it doesn’t!
The redevelopment projects are exempt from the 50 percent mandate. While the SFRA does have a 50 percent Local Hire goal, it is based on “good faith.” Well, we see how that “good faith” is working out for us, right? I think that a locally accountable and controlled redevelopment agency is definitely worth exploring.
The lack of public safety is another great concern. Who wants to spend $450,000 on a house then have to worry about someone doing an armed home invasion or catching a stray bullet? The police’s response to the crime problem has been cookie-cutter and does nothing in the way of preventive solutions. Their answer has been to “lock ‘em up.” They come in to pick up the bodies after it’s over.
There is a strong belief in some circles that the rampant violence and lawlessness that went on during the mid ‘80s up until recently was allowed to continue unchecked by the “powers that be” so that we would remove OURSELVES from this city. Many of our population fled San Francisco to escape the violence and heartache of the loss of loved ones to street violence.
The last item that I want to mention, which probably should have been mentioned first, since this is what it all begins with, is education, or should I say the lack of quality public education in this city. Bayview Hunters Point has some of the worst performing schools in the City. This is due in large part to lack of proper funding. So what has the SFUSD’s response been? Bus our young residents all over the City to so-called “better” schools. This policy creates a number of problems:
[5]
Macio Lyons of the Osiris Coalition and the Southeast Community Development Corp., far right, Joshua Arce of the Brightline Defense Project, left, and Vincent Pan and another representative from Chinese for Affirmative Action hold a press conference at CAA headquarters for the unveiling of the telling report, “The Failure of Good Faith,” which made the case for local hire.
1. People from other parts of the city don’t want our kids coming into their neighborhoods and schools, so this creates an environment of mistrust and suspicion. The moment our kids do anything wrong, they are dealt with very heavy-handedly, and in many cases are criminalized.
2. If a child’s school is all the way on the other side of town, it creates a hardship for low-income parents to go up to the school and be hands-on in their child’s education. It is also very difficult for concerned parents to stay engaged and, if need be, hold their child’s teachers and school administrators accountable. The SFUSD’s school assignment system is one of the most confusing in the country to navigate.
3. While schools are to some extent tied to the property tax rolls, the money follows the children! So wherever that child goes to school, the money allocated for their education will go with them. This means that the money is following our children out of our neighborhood schools, where it is desperately needed. And it leads back to a very important question: Why can’t every neighborhood have their own quality neighborhood schools? Schools in close proximity to students’ homes will foster more parental involvement and reduce excessive absences and truancy. It may even reduce some of the gang violence and “set trippin’” over time, because these kids will be around each other. It’s a lot easier for them to hurt someone they don’t know, even if he only lives around the corner. Once upon a time they would’ve gone to the same school, but that’s not necessarily true anymore with the current school assignment procedures in place.
Osiris Coalition members were instrumental in helping to get the “Students First for Quality Neighborhood Schools” initiative introduced and on the ballot for this coming November. This bill, if passed, will give back to San Francisco parents more control in school choice for their children and put quality schools back in their own neighborhood. This is imperative for Bayview Hunters Point children, because they are suffering the most. Just look at our dismal truancy, special education and high school graduation rates.
There are so many variables to the problems we are facing in this city. We have to come together and find solutions to these problems because only WE can save ourselves! We need to focus on identifying all of the variables in order to counter them to preserve the remaining population, and create a situation that will make it attractive enough for many of those who left to return. Our mission is to push a political agenda that will benefit African Americans in this city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)