Race, Class and Brooklyn: We are only color blind when it comes to elections
Today my daughter was teased by her schoolmates because she liked Chris Owens. They told her that Yassky told them he would "build them a playground" (I don't know what that is based on and am not holding Yassky accountable!) and that Chris was a racist.
This is the result of the CD-11 rancor. And it is based on many false premises that were perpetuated by Yassky's campaign, his followers, and the white-dominated press.
And, after saying for months that race doesn't matter in the CD-11 race, I am furious because really, it does. How can it not? Racism really does permeate our society and of ALL the people I know, Chris is perhaps the LEAST racist. And yet, he gets blamed for the racism in Brooklyn.
My wife, even more furious than I am at the racism we see around us, puts it this way: "Why are we color blind only when it comes to an election."
I think it is time to face some facts about Brooklyn and about the CD-11 race. And, to be honest, about most whites and Jews in my neighborhood.
A baby born to a black woman in Brooklyn is much more likely to die in infancy than a white baby. Medical care is far worse for black children than for white children. Schools in predominantly black neighborhoods are far worse than those in predominantly white neighborhoods. Blacks are much more likely to go to jail than whites for the same crime. Black males have about a 50% jobless rate. And blacks have a substantially lower life expectancy. From birth to death, blacks have it worse than their on average richer, melanin-deficient neighbors.
That is the reality everyone who is born with considerable skin pigmentation is faced with.
I can only imagine the anger I would feel if I realized that my skin color meant at every moment of my life I am getting the short end of the stick.
And then I am told it is okay for a white man to move into a predominantly black district with the goal of winning a congressional seat because the black vote is split among three (originally four) candidates.
That is what blacks in the CD-11 race are faced with.
I am a white Jew. Yassky expected me to vote for him, originally. And I do feel an affinity for Yassky, perhaps because we both are kind of nerdy Jews. But I also have eyes.
I walk around Prospect Park. One end, which happens to face the richer, whiter area, is well-maintained and well-patrolled. The other end, which happens to face the poorer, darker-skinned area, has huge ruts in the paths, fewer patrols and, until recently, missing slats on most of the benches. The benches were finally fixed after years of being crappy on only the poor end of the park.
That has always struck me as a condemnation of Brooklyn and all its politicians.
And yet we are told it is racist to think it is wrong for a white man to move into a predominantly black neighborhood specifically to run in a race where three black candidates are splitting the black vote. Yassky was assuming whites would vote for him and so he would win.
Joy and I were canvassing between 3rd and 4th Ave. in our neighborhood. As you go from the park down the slope (hence, "Park Slope") there is a fairly sharp gradation in class...and a gradual increase in melanin pigment. By 3rd Ave. you are in a poorer neighborhood where the smell of the sewage laden Gowanus canal lends a nice perfume to the area.
We saw something horrifying. A baby wandered, unattended, out into the street. Luckily, cars stopped and passerbys rescued the child. There was a playground where the child had wandered from. I was angry that the parent had let the child wander off. But then I noticed the playground had no gates. Every single playground in the whiter, richer part of Park Slope has gates to keep the children from wandering off. Not in the poor, black area, though. No gates to protect the children.
The only part of our society that my Park Slope neighbors expect to be color blind are elections. They don't understand that if you are screwed your whole life because of the color of your skin you might not like the kind of racial calculus a man like Yassky is making when he moves into the district to run.
Now let's consider when race was first mentioned in the CD-11 race. Chris Owens and Yvette Clarke did not mention it first. Yassky did at every event I saw him at in the early days of his campaign. Every single early forum he spoke at, he introduced himself as "the white candidate running." I always felt it was a joke, making fun of himself. But I also now see it as belittling, probably unintentionally, the fact that race is a stark fact of life for most of the district, affecting the child mortality rate, life expectancy, incarceration rate and unemployment rate of the community.
Yassky started bringing up race at every chance. Only after that did Yvette Clarke and Chris Owens respond.
I will be honest. I never thought they should have responded. Or, perhaps, Chris should have responded that he thought he was the best candidate regardless of race, that Yassky was cynical for moving into the district where he could win because of a split black vote and assuming a unified white vote, though he has every right to run, and that if you want to talk race that Chris is the only candidate who reflects the diversity of the district.
Which brings us to Chris. I know Chris and he is not racist. I cannot put it plainer than that. His mother is Jewish. His uncle was a rabbi. I have never felt that Chris had anything but respect and friendship for Joy and I. And I have to emphasize that we are pretty damned pale.
Yassky's support came almost exclusively from whites and Jews. Chris' support came from all ethnic groups in the district. So I see no evidence whatsoever that Chris is racist. It makes no sense given the mutual respect and affection he has with his mother. It makes no sense if you spend a mere two minutes interacting with Chris. It makes no sense if you look at the faces of his supporters.
And yet my daughter gets bullied because her peers are repeating the Yassky talking points that their parents repeated without thinking of the effect it would have on their children. That is why I feel angry enough to further beat this supposedly dead horse. The talking points used by the Yassky campaign have echoes and my daughter was extremely upset by one of those echoes. Her friends don't understand nuance any better than she does. They will just remember that their parents called Chris racist. But it seems that their largely wealthy, white parents don't understand much nuance either since they seem to have no clue what society looks like if you go to the other end of the Park. Because there is no way they would think society is in any way color blind if they simply compared their neighborhood with the neighborhoods across the park.
I know I need to emphasize that I do NOT consider Yassky racist. I have come to see his supporters as either racist or, at best, ignorant of just how unequal our society is. I do blame Yassky for a certain amount of cynicism in moving into the district specifically to run with a split black vote. That isn't racist. It is opportunistic as even the NY Times admits. Yassky WANTED to represent all members of the district well. And I do think Yassky would have been a perfectly good Congressman.
But that is beside the point. By taking that opportunity to move into a district with a split black vote, by bringing up race at the outset, and by letting your opponent be called racist unfairly, Yassky has added unintentionally to the racial unfairness in the district.
There is, of course, a class component to all this. But for me it is hard to ignore the different level of melanin pigmentation that fairly clearly labels the classes.
If this diary seems too late and a bit rambling it is because it is written in anger on behalf of my upset daughter. But believe me, even though I prefer Yassky to Clarke, since Clarke is certainly qualified, I do think it is better for this district to be represented by a black woman who can serve as a role model for the children of the district (those who survive the higher infant mortality rate) than to see yet another wealthy white lawyer go to Congress.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Ethnicity | Identity | Politics | Race | Brooklyn | CD-11
Well said
Submitted by mole333 on 13 September 2006 - 11:04pm.
My wife had worse anecdotes she really wanted me to blog but I couldn't fit in with my currently frazzled brain. She had wealthy white women yell at her, shaking their fingers at her, no less, scolding her for supporting Chris as if she was selling out her race. She was even called a "dupe" by one of them.
My wife felt that she was angering them because by supporting Chris she was calling them on their superior assumption that the white must be better. My wife and I think many Parl Slopers have a minor version of the "white man's burden" syndrome. My wife certainly got that feeling.
Your comment about Ratner's selling of Atlantic Yards is merely another version of "trickle down" BS is brilliant. I never thought of it that way but it is EXACTLY right. Thank you for that insight!
Here's what gets me. There
Submitted by Interested observer outside the 11th (not verified) on 13 September 2006 - 10:52pm.
Here's what gets me. There was never a negative thing said about Yassky except that he was white. Every newspaper article and TV news report about the race began with 'the white candidate running in a voting rights district'. Race, not experience, ideas or ingenuity was the determining factor in this race, as you allude to. Say what will about race difference in this country, or even the world, but electing people based on this problem does not solve the problem, it makes it worse.
That's simply not true.
Submitted by Antid Oto (not verified) on 14 September 2006 - 2:59am.
Maybe you weren't paying attention. Yassky was also criticized for quietly pushing his militantly pro-Israel views to the Orthodox Jews in the district while downplaying them for everyone else. He was very keen on confrontation with Iran, for example, which I thought was dangerous. Early on he sent out flyers to Orthodox neighborhoods and featured on his website information about his success in appropriating public money to support private religious schools. That information disappeared from his website as the campaign wore on, as did the section on "Defending Israel" where he called for confrontation with Iran.
He was also criticized for waffling on the Yards.
I'm sure I could come up with other things he was criticized for if I thought about it. You are right that media coverage of the district went straight to his race, but that's largely because reporters and editors were pushing an easy story.
"Now let's consider when
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 13 September 2006 - 11:15pm.
"Now let's consider when race was first mentioned in the CD-11 race. Chris Owens and Yvette Clarke did not mention it first. Yassky did at every event I saw him at in the early days of his campaign. "
The first person to mention race in this race was Major Owens who called Yassky a "colonizer."
BS. I don't know who
Submitted by morkfrombrooklyn (not verified) on 13 September 2006 - 11:43pm.
BS. I don't know who mentioned it first as far as the canddiates but it wasz certainly brought up by the media long before Rep. Owens made that charge. And please, what else do you call what Yassky did excpete colonization?
You are wrong
Submitted by mole333 on 14 September 2006 - 12:07am.
I don't think Major Owens' comments on the issue were very helpful, but you are dead wrong about who first brought up race. Yassky's very first campaign speeches began with "I am the white candidate." I heard him say it before Major's comments.
So please, if you want to discuss Major's comments, we can do that. But don't claim that he brought it up.
I would also say that "colonizer," even if ill conceived and undiplomatic, is referring to the action of Yassky MOVING INTO THE DISTRICT in order to run where the black vote would be split. Understand that Major's comments didn't refer to Yassky's race per se but to his choosing a district not based on community interest so much as on opportunity in a racial context.
By the way, one really
Submitted by morkfrombrooklyn (not verified) on 13 September 2006 - 11:48pm.
By the way, one really awesome white person that I think most black folks would not mind representing them (certainly not this one) has passed on.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_09_10_atrios_archive.html#11582032947607...
Just read that!
Submitted by mole333 on 14 September 2006 - 12:09am.
I really wish Ann Richard had made a run for President. She was so fantastic.
Great posts Bouldin and
Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on 14 September 2006 - 1:34am.
Great posts Bouldin and mole333. This race has revealed a sort of proud racial ignorance among normally astute persons with a lefty orientation. It's been a disturbing thing to see friends alienated by frank discussions of the racial / ethnic / tribal aspects of the cd-11 race which mirrors the situation throughout the city.
ANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on 14 September 2006 - 7:41am.
RAWR!!!!!!!!! Those stupid kids were so mean to your step daughter!!!!!!!!!(at least most of them) RAWR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is to be done?
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 14 September 2006 - 8:37am.
The hardest question for me when facing incidents like those you guys have run into is: what should we do? How do we reach out to those who appear to be locking themselves in a race and tribe prision? Principled non-theists, we've begun talking to congregants and local synagogues. While Lebanon and Israel seem to still be difficult subjects, the work of the Jewish community on Darfur genocide seems -- to me at least -- to provide an easier entree into the subjects of race and tribe. Thoughts?
Great post
Submitted by Bouldin on 14 September 2006 - 9:13am.
Now that the campaign is over, I can finally say it: a lot of Yassky supporters were either:
- Jews who wanted to vote for another Jew
- Whites who resented living in a black district
I said early on that there would be a price to pay for Yassky's run, so this incident does not come as anything of a surprise. Just consider Gatemouth's countless rants about 'blood libel', or how Chris 'hates Israel', or how Chris (and his supporters) want to throw the Jews into the sea. Or just remember the sentiment, echoed in that NYT endorsement, that blacks have made a hash out of self-government, requiring the benign services of a Viceroy Yassky; the white man's burden and all that.
The worst part is that David is actually a smart guy, and there is no way that his crafty brain can't have anticipated this outcome. He knew this was going to happen, put it down in his mental ledger, and decided that his own lust for advancement weighed more heavily in the scales. That's what is truly unforgivable.
I am loving every minute, btw
Submitted by Liza Sabater on 14 September 2006 - 11:36am.
I have two white guys talking about race to a largely white audience. I don't know you, but i'm loving every minute of it.
exit polls?
Submitted by rwallnerny on 14 September 2006 - 7:09pm.
mole said: (Yassky's support came almost exclusively from whites and Jews. Chris' support came from all ethnic groups in the district) Sounds like a definitive, fact based statement. Whats your source? Have you seen exit polls with crosstabs for demographics? I wasn't aware any were done. There had to have been some black people voting for Yassky, if pre-election polls showing him with 7-10% of the black vote were correct.
The race/class problems in the district and city are real, but this anger and rancor isn't the solution. These racial conflicts are why republicans can swoop in on this heavily democratic city and take the mayor's office every four years. A candidate of one race wins the primary, and other candidates cry racism. There were some people who wanted to hang Mark Green in effigy after the Mayor's primary the year he ran. Thus by taking their anger out on him, you had people alienating all those who supported Green and vice versa. It accomplished nothing, other than a bunch of people getting on their high horses to show that they are "less racist" than the next guy. Same thing happening here. White people gloating that they are less racist than other white people because they supported a black candidate. I'm white and I supported a black candidate (well mixed race, it was Owens), but I'm not getting on my high horse and calling people who supported the white candidate racists. It accomplishes nothing. It hurts the party, it hurts our causes. All the anti-Yassky hostility did was make people on both sides more angry. The racial tensions are worse now than before the election!
an anecdote
I sympathize with a lot of what you're saying. I spent two years as a teaching assistant in PS 9 in Prospect Heights. It's on Underhill between Bergen and St. Marks. Townhouses less than a block away from there are now selling for 2 million dollars. Yet in my two years teaching there, it was abundantly clear that despite the rapidly gentrifying neighborhood that surrounded it, the school, and more importantly its generally poor black pupils, were not seeing any of the benefits. This is one of the falacies that the Ratner people have sold the black community. With wealth for some comes wealth for others. A rising tide raises all boats. That's pure Trickle-Down bullshit.
The school was getting worse as I left, perhaps becasue the kids were having to come from further and further away to get there, since all the young white kids moving into the nieghborhood were going to private schools. This undoubtedly created greater feelings of disconnect among the students there.
That's part of why people should have paid more attention the the fact that Chris' kids go to public school in the area. While it is hard to blame anyone for wanting their children to get the best education possible, the fact that Yassky chose to send his kids to private school is at least a tacit acknowledgment that he knows race and racism affect the school system. For him to claim that race should not be important for voters, when he knows it's very important when it comes to education is hypocritical. sigh...
I hadn't really realized the extent that Yassky's cry of racism had affected the white population in park slope, who i normally associate with die hard progressivism. Last night, as I was volunteering at a polling place in midwood for Chris, a white Yassky volunteer, who I could only imagine lived in park slope or brooklyn heights (profiling, I know. sorry) said something to me along the lines of:
"I really liked and respected a lot of Chris's policies, but I really didn't like it when he said 'Yassky had no right to run because he is white' That's what really made me come out for Yassky."
How sad! This obviously reasonably intelligent man had been blinded by election time propaganda in the worst way. Yassky made a smart move by playing on the racism of whites in the slope. I didn't think it would work, but I stand corrected. He really wouldn't have had any shot if he hadn't been "the white candidate."
You're right, Yassky would have been better congressperson than Clarke, but the fact that he exploited white racism to become that congressman makes me glad he didn't win. Clarke did the same thing with the black population, but like you, I find it very difficult to blame poor black people for wanting a representative who at least knows what it's like to be black. Like you said, it's really hard for wealthy white people who never see the other side of prospect park to believe racism exists.
It may be true that having an effective white representative would help black people realize they don't need to have other blacks as their elected officials in order to be served, and thus help reduce some of the racism that permeates that community. I think it is probably more true that after many years of ineffective black representation, what the black community really needs is an effective leader of their own color who can bring some pride back into the community and get rid of some apathy. Owens definitely would have been that candidate. I have my doubts about Clarke, but I am going to try to be optimistic.