No words better convey a proper response, than these from Dr. Martin Luther King:
“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”-
SomervilleTom says
Baltimore is emblematic of the wealth inequality that all of America suffers from. While our media proudly trumpets our “black President” as evidence that we have left behind our racism, the reality of minority neighborhoods in cities like Baltimore, Ferguson, and — yes — our own “gateway cities” like Lawrence and Springfield remind us of how far we have to go.
Yes, these slums are caused by abject poverty. The reality is that it is blacks, Hispanics, and Latinos who pay the price. In Baltimore, overwhelmingly, it is blacks.
These are not isolated pockets of poverty, these are entire regions of an American city, only fifty miles from Washington, DC. Images speak louder than words:
jconway says
I think one of the biggest reasons the New Deal coalition collapsed was because of Northern white ethnic resistance to black progress. This resistance is lamentable, but having come from that stock, I understand how resentment politics can occur.
A key question is how to get the generations that grew up out of the city due to white flight to remember the people they left behind and recognize we are all on the same side, victims of an inequitable market, and doing so without alienating or whitewashing the legitimate claims black communities have against white supremacy?
How can we make the following truism go away?
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
(LBJ talking to Bill Moyers about white working class resistance to civil rights)
There aren’t easy answers. I appreciate that Jim Webb in his campaign rhetoric has been connecting the black kid growing up poor in West Baltimore with the white kid growing up poor in West Virginia. Both are forgotten by the federal government, both have few options to get out, and ‘college’ or ‘learn a technical skillset’ are clearly meek responses to their plight. The thing is, we can’t equate the two since the black kid is still worse off. How can we lift up both without denying that one is starting from a lower rung due from intentional policies that were designed to keep him there?
merrimackguy says
It doesn’t matter in Baltimore that there was a black president and he’s been elected to two terms.
It doesn’t matter that he had a full D Congress for 2 years and a half D Congress for 4 more years.
It didn’t matter that MD is one of the two bluest states in the country, and the population of Baltimore is over 10% of the population of that state.
It didn’t matter that the mayor of Baltimore is black and the council looks diverse. I would be surprised if there’s any R’s in the bunch.
It didn’t matter the policeman are all union members.
Ten years ago people said “The Wire” portrayed Baltimore unfairly.Looks like they got it pretty accurate, and not much has changed.
Who do you want to do something? What do you want them to do? Maybe we could take up a collection for rioters.
Note: Do you really want to cast your lot with people who cut the fire hoses of fire personnel trying to put out fires? Try selling that to the American people.
Christopher says
Poverty is a societal, rather than individual or family, choice. We absolutely CAN choose not to have poverty in the wealthiest nation on the planet.
SomervilleTom says
All those things that you said “doesn’t matter” — they are all true.
As you have observed, “R” and “D” are irrelevant. The slums of Baltimore have been a blight and a cancer under absolute (both houses and presidency) Democratic and Republican rule.
What do I think should be done? We could start by clawing back some of the obscene wealth being hoarded by our 1% or 1/2% and finding ways to invest it in inner city slums like Baltimore (don’t forget Detroit).
Most of the residents of Baltimore are not rioting, are not cutting fire hoses, and are instead doing the best they can to scrape by in this wealthiest and most prosperous nation in human history.
Their story DOES indeed need to be told to the American people.
merrimackguy says
Give me solution though. Assume you get the money.
Note there’s not as much money in the top 1% as you think. There just isn’t enough of them. Some estimates say that even if you taxed them at a 100% rate, you’d only raise about a trillion additional.
Income supplements (like the EITC?)
Urban renewal?
Jobs program?
There are 600,000 people in Baltimore. some estimates say 20% live in poverty, but let’s us 100,000 for simplicity’s sake.
Give everyone $1000? That’s $100 million. Probably doesn’t change much.
Give everyone $5000? That’s would be great for a worker, probably a little light for someone without a job- that’s $500 million.
That’s every year, and that’s only Baltimore.
SomervilleTom says
According to sources like this, there is more wealth in the top 1% than you seem to admit.
In table 2 of the cited link, in 2010 (the latest date measured), the top 1% held 42.1% of the total non-home wealth, and next 19% held another 53%. That means that the top quintile (20%) held 95.3% of non-home wealth, and the remaining 80% held just 4.7%. Please also bear in mind that those at the top end of the top 1% have a great deal more than those at the bottom of that same exclusive group. This (and similar) data shows that the top 1% holds a great deal more than the $1T you offer. Wealth concentration has increased significantly since 2010.
I don’t know what the right mix of spending measures are. Education, unemployment, EITC, health care, minimum wage, guaranteed annual income, and urban homesteader programs are probably all part of that “right” mix.
We have the wealth in this nation. We must address who controls that wealth.
merrimackguy says
So if you taxed 100% of their income, it’s $1 trillion in additional taxes. (the delta between what they currently pay and what they would pay at a 100% tax rate).
If you’re going to tax wealth, that’s a multi-step process and would probably take years to figure out.
Here’s where I am going with this…
“Tax the 1% more” is a slogan and even if it’s implemented will reel in less money that most believe. FYI I still run into people who think we will solve our deficit problem by ending foreign aid!
I think we will increase taxes on the wealthy and it will bring in more money. I just don’t think it will make it to Baltimore. Even if MD got money, here’s where it would go:
1. Some would get stuck in Annapolis
2. Some of it would get stuck in City Hall.
3. It would probably go for:
More police and fire pay.
Some kind of building projects with developers getting the most. Unions too.
People who do business with the city.
A couple bucks might flow to the bottom.
merrimackguy says
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/fergusons-fortune-500-company/390492/
SomervilleTom says
I agree that taxing wealth is a multi-step process, and will take years to figure out. I also agree that part of that process will be ensuring that most of the new tax revenue ends up where it belongs — benefiting those at the bottom and in the middle.
It seems to me that some of the items you cite can do both:
– More police and fire pay, perhaps with residency requirements and recruiting goals. Police and fire-fighters who live in the city are more likely to be welcomed and supported by their neighbors, and as residents are part of the “middle” that I mentioned.
– Building projects — for local developers. “local” as in city residents.
– Unions — Unions, hiring city residents, are a good thing (in my view) and stronger unions comprised of city residents are effective ways to strengthen the inner city.
– People who do business with the city — again, so long as those vendors are city residents, I see this as a win.
For a minimum wage worker in Baltimore ($8.25/hr), an extra $1,000/year is a 6% increase. Most workers I know are happy to receive 6%, especially if it were tax-free. More importantly, most of that is likely to be spent immediately and therefore serves to improve the business climate of the entire community. A thousand residents spending an extra thousand dollars a year in their community adds $1M to the local economy. I think that might, in fact, be very welcome.
A portion of that spending, at a community level, will surely be transformed into community-based wealth. Local shops and restaurants expand, jobs are created, new entrepreneurs find themselves with hundreds of thousands in working capital instead of tens.
I think these are the ways that dying communities are reborn.
merrimackguy says
I think I noted that 35% of businesses in Baltimore are minority owned. That sounds like a good base to work with.
You’ve made some notes that I agree with completely. Overtime for law enforcement that lives in the suburbs, prevailing wage work for suburban trade unions members, and national developers are not the path to restoring the city, as well as the other points you cite.
We’ll see what happens next. It seems like policy talks about cities in the US that rocket (Boston, NYC, SF) or are troubled (Baltimore, Detroit).
Somewhere out there must be the right environmental mix to produce a city that meets the needs of a broad swath of residents.
centralmassdad says
All empathy means is understanding. One may understand why something is happening, without agreeing that it should.
jconway says
Since he ably, if inadvertently, shows what we are up against and conformed to LBJ’s observations. It so much easier to condemn the rioters than to condemn the system that made them feel so powerless that rioting was their only recourse. Nowhere did I condone the riots, neither did Dr. King in my initial quote.
What I am condemning is the myopia that views the riots in a vacuum and exclusively assigns blame to angry black young men without recognizing the triggering action, in this specific case another young black man dead at the hands of the police under questionable circumstances, and beyond that, systemic policies that have failed to solve any of these social problems. It’s always easier to blame the other for their lot, without questioning how or why they ended up there. I’d rather ask questions than assign blame, since questions lead to answers while blame does nothing to solve the problem.
merrimackguy says
Across the world there’s usually an oppressive force riding over some disadvantaged population. That population reacts. Tamils, Houthi, Sunni, Chechen, the list goes on. Whether you think they are terrorist or noble depends on your experience.
This is the good ole’ US of A though and typically we expect people to find a way to get along without violence.
SomervilleTom says
One person’s “terrorist” is another person’s “freedom fighter”. Seems like more often than not the distinction depends on who’s talking.
We do, appropriately, expect people to find a non-violent path. That non-violent path is often more successful when the real threat of violent alternatives is also on the radar.
Most of the successful non-violent radicals (like MLK) worked in the context of more violent alternatives (like Stokely Carmichael/SNCC or MalcolmX/NationOfIslam).
The venerable and effective “Good cop/Bad cop” routine requires both.
Christopher says
If you target civilians for the business end of your bomb you are a terrorist. A freedom fighter is generally more defensive than offensive and even if offensive chooses targets appropriately. Also bullets might be more justified when there is no access to ballots.
SomervilleTom says
There were no military targets of value in Dresden when it was firebombed in February of 1945 (emphasis mine):
Your attempt to differentiate terrorists from freedom fighters fails basic history. War is never so clean as you suggest.
Christopher says
…but Dresden, carried out by the military of one nation or alliance against targets of another nation with which said alliance is at war is an act of war rather than an act of terrorism (though I don’t doubt it terrified residents of Dresden). Ditto Okinawa and Nagasaki or from the other side Pearl Harbor and the London Blitzkreig. I tend to not call it terrorism when carried out by the armed forces of a nation, though soldiers CAN be culpable of war crimes such as My Lai. There may be a bit of gray, but like obscenity I know it when I see it and any example you might give I think I can be confidently assign it to one of the three categories.
kirth says
It incinerated them. between 400,00 and 600,000 of them, many of them refugees.
If you’d like an eyewitness account, Kurt Vonnegut includes one in his novel Slaughterhouse-Five. He was a prisoner of war in Dresden during the raids.
I can’t see the bombings as anything but terrorism, regardless of what gloss of respectability you’d like to apply to the perpetrators.
Christopher says
I just deliberately chose a word with the same root as terrorist for the purpose of this exchange.
thegreenmiles says
Read the whole thing:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
thebaker says
The more I read of MLK the more I realize his nonviolent protests were not so nonviolent. Words matter.
I say this because the Mayor of Baltimore said some pretty stupid things leading up to this protest …
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/mayor-stephanie-rawlings-blake-under-fire-giving-space-destroy-baltimore-n349656
Shame
SomervilleTom says
MLK was revolutionary. His words were and are disruptive. During his lifetime, he was despised by a great many white people — mainstream America had no difficulty recognizing that MLK was serious about bringing about serious changes.
There is a reason he was assassinated, and there is a reason he was relentless hounded and harassed by federal and local government.
Christopher says
You cite MLK as revolutionary, yet he is famous for non-violent tactics, unless you are somehow suggesting that the violence of his assassination was a necessary component to his work being seen as revolutionary.
SomervilleTom says
I knew there was something amiss, and I just missed the missing “not”.
merrimackguy says
says your guy, President Obama, and perhaps one of the best know African-Americans in the US. Not sure I can add to that.
Christopher says
However, when a President speaks as President he is not “your guy”; he is (all of) OUR guy.
merrimackguy says
Nt
jconway says
From CNN
merrimackguy says
Nt
chris-rich says
..fits poorly on the ham fist of bigotry.
Why can’t you just stick to your heroic tales of filling gravel rail hopper cars with a shovel?
Take a hint from your valued role model.. https://youtu.be/bi8zyp1je9Y.. and spare the world your dime store sociology crafted in the vacuum of self importance.
merrimackguy says
Is it directed at me?
howlandlewnatick says
And we shouldn’t expect blowback?
We’ve had decades of sending US jobs away to be done by slaves in the underdeveloped world. As this is written, a new trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, secreted from the American people, comes up for vote in Congress. Does anyone not believe more jobs will be exported; the downward economic spiral continue? Little wonder people are angry.
We have police, many trained to initiate violent confrontation, relying on firepower rather than resolving a dispute. I understand a whistleblower has revealed tattoos for shooting civilians in at least on jurisdiction. The courts, unions, politicians have made the police the enemy of the people. Little wonder the almost daily reports of men, woman, children – of any race – molested or murdered by police. Police know that the system is designed to protect them in their violent deeds. They aren’t the guardians of the people, they are the jailers of the open-air prison that used to be the Republic.
We’ve been led down a difficult path.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ―Carl Sagan