smugtownbeacon/news.php?viewStory=1075 As many of you probably know, it appears that Mr. Christopher Wilmot (co-publisher of Smugtown Beacon) has gone bonkers over the prospect, and likelihood that, in just a short while --- the person in charge of Rochesters City Government will be a black woman. Based on several articles, which Mr. Wilmot published recently, it appears that he has some real, and deep trouble accepting this likely reality. In an attempt to help him understand that, as a journalist, he has seemingly lost all sense of objectivity --- I developed the article below, and respectfully requested publication via Smugtown Beacon. I dont know if he will publish it or not, but I wanted to share my thoughts with yall. As always feedback is welcomed, and encouraged. -------------------------------- Understanding The Functionality of Racialized Attitudes Dear Mr. Wilmot, I take staunch exception to several articles that you authored, and published recently, regarding Rochesters 2013 Mayoral Election, including one published on 10/29/13, in which you implied that Rochester City Councilman, Adam McFadden has no sense of decency. With regard to rationalizing, and/or sensationalizing numerous strange (to say the least) events, and circumstances surrounding the 2013 Rochester Mayoral Election, you seem to be grasping for straws (in a way that Ive never witnessed before). For example, as it relates to Rochester City Councilman Adam McFaddens so-called insensitivity for not better focusing on Mayor Richards grief over the death of Richards son --- I cant figure out (for the life of me) what in the heck youre talking about. Can you please explain to your readers (in clear, concise terms) exactly what it is that Adam McFadden did, or did not do, thats substantively different than what other local politicos did, or did not do, which would possibly lead you to the perplexing conclusion that Mr. McFadden is insensitive [and] lacks interest in Mayor Richards sons passing? I think youre making it up. The answer to your totally disconnected (from strange circumstances, and events surrounding the Mayoral race) question about whether or not a white [person] would be a racist or be guilty of possessing racialized attitudes if [he or she] agrees, for instance, with some of what Black comedian-activist Bill Cosby has said about Black America, and their apparent need to stop using ghetto lingo, and pull themselves up by their own boot straps --- is not necessarily --- no more so than a black person would necessarily be a racist or be guilty of possessing racialized attitudes if [he or she] agrees, for instance, with some [or with all] of what White lecturer-anti-racist-activist Tim Wise has said about White America, and their apparent need to understand, and come to grips with the pathology of white privilege (youtube/watch?v=e2iPt96hziM). It would be most interesting to know what the super-wealthy, boot-strap-theorist thinks of Mr. Wises teachings. For additional, pertinent, information --- both you, and Mr. Cosby should take a good, long, look at some of the information at the following link: https://google/search?q=tim+wise+white+people&oq=Tim+Wise&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i61.33619j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Quite frankly, I find your rant regarding social justice and standards to be nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. Thus far, you have utilized your journalistic-organ to launch recent, rapid-fire-criticisms, and attacks against Ms Lovely Warren, and her closest associates. First, you wrote, and published an article alerting your readers of how much greater Tom Richards is than Ms. Warren relative to command of the English Language (9/14/13). Then on 10/21/13, you published a piece attacking, and criticizing Ms. Warren, Mr. David Gantt, and Mr. Scott Gaddy for doing what white politicians do all the time, i.e., utilizing clever, legal, strategies to infuse resources into Ms. Warrens campaign. Yet, your silence is deafening regarding the fact that the State Republican Committee wants Gov. Andrew Cuomos anti-corruption panel to investigate Lt. Governor Robert Duffy --- the latter of whom (unlike boot-strap-theorist Bill Cosby) is connected in a very real, and concrete way to the Rochester Mayoral race (democratandchronicle/story/news/local/2013/10/28/ny-gop-seeks-investigation-of-lt-gov-robert-duffy/3288245/). Now, (10/29/13) youre (journalistically) attacking Rochester City Councilman Adam McFadden for (of all things) so-called insensitivity. Yet, in your classic, double-standards-mode-of-operation --- you have not written a single word about the lowdown, dirty, unscrupulous actions of Molly Clifford, Gary Walker, and Ken Warner (the latter of whom just may have jeopardized his soft, union job), which former Mayor William A, Johnson Jr. labelled as being nothing short of duplicitous conspiracy. (rochesterhomepage.net/story/johnson-says-richards-sent-mixed-message/d/story/3DjS3kxAlEiwkLmvJbv64A). I must ask Mr. Wilmot, is it possible that, the fact that criticism, and attacks have apparently been reserved for Ms. Warren, Mr. Gantt, Mr. Gaddy, and now Councilman McFadden --- while there has been no attacks or criticism of Clifford. Duffy, Walker, or Warner --- a result of racialized attitudes? Stop! Dont be so quick to answer. Before answering, think about it. (long, hard, and seriously). No one has said that it is a civil disaster that Tom Richards did not formally call for the cessation of the ‘shadow campaign’ to re-elect him. However, plenty of people, including former Mayor Johnson, have said that the mush-mouth response that hes given is very unlike Tom Richards, [and that] Its one of the weirdest situations [he has] ever experienced. Sorry Mr. Wilmot, but you can not distort, and rationalize this situation as being merely a matter of the local Democratic Party [being] in turmoil. Its a lot deeper than that sir. Nor can you construe this as being merely a matter (solely) of Adam McFadden [being] all bent out of shape about the Mayor’s tepid response to the draft campaign to have Richards remain at City Hall, With regard to your question: who cares --- I imagine that 8,772 Rochester citizens who cast votes for Ms. Lovely Warren on September 10th care. Yes, that is a big deal --- a very big deal. I understand that you believe race shouldnt be an issue in this year’s Mayor’s race, but it IS an issue, and always has been in every, local, Mayors race. What (exactly) do you think Ms. warren is talking about when she talks about the fact that Rochester is a tale of two cities? One city is vibrant, hopeful, wealthy and highly livable [and overwhelmingly, predominantly white]. The other suffers from escalating poverty, dysfunction, unemployment that is higher today than it was during the Great Depression — and a deficient educational system, [which is overwhelmingly, predominantly black and brown]. These are facts, and no amount of worshiping the words of Dr. Martin Luther King will change this reality. democratandchronicle/story/opinion/2013/10/25/election-essay-lovely-warren/3200069/ It is true that none of us can speak specifically or conclusively to peoples individual or collective attitudes about race, and its place in the Mayoral election to be held in seven days, but what we do know is that so-called racialized attitudes, or individual and institutionalized racism is necessarily real within thoroughly racist societies, such as the good-ole-U.S.of A, including smug-town. And, we know that it is definitely a factor relative to creation, and maintenance of the tale of two cities, which Ms. Warren speaks of. We also know that racism, or racialized attitudes did not create themselves --- people did. Nor are they maintaining and perpetuating themselves --- people are. In other words, there is no such thing as racism without racists or racialized attitudes. Your Orson Wellss quote is quite obvious, and self-evident. That is, we know that, in the process of establishing, and developing the U.S. nation-state --- human nature was absolutely, largely abandoned by the dominant groups, and it appears that we have never been able (as a City, County, State, and Nation) to fully recapture it, which is a major reason why we can not (at this particular point in time) drop race --- not even for a little while. As a critically important, fundamental issue, and contradiction within this society, which claims to be all about justice, and equality --- race is ever present, and ever-operative. It will never magically disappear. Just as those who abandoned human nature created, and maintained it --- those of us who profess to believe in human nature --- will necessarily have to destroy it. Otherwise, the time will never come when we will be able to drop race --- not even for just a little while. With regard to the November 5th Mayoral race, (just as in the cases of all November 5th races) one thing is for certain --- the ballots [WILL] fall where they may. Howard J. Eagle Rochester
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:57:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015