With all the talk about a “Black seat” on the city council, we now have reference to an “Asian seat” after the win by Lena Tam. David K. says (did everyone catch this? it was buried in a rather lengthy post):
At least we can say we held our racial sensitivity and maintained an Asian seat on our city council. This , like Pat Bail’s comment is not meant in a derogatory fashion. Tam was dully elected by the voters who believe she is the #1 choice for council. And it is important to maintain diversity.
What do they call this…oh yes damning with faint praise. Even though he acknowledges that Lena Tam was “duly elected by the voters who believe she is the #1 choice for council” he calls this a nod to Alameda maintaining its “racial sensitivity” and “diversity.” I wasn’t around when Tony Daysog was elected to office but did people immediately start pointing to him and declaring, “well at least we filled that Asian seat!” When we go into the voting booth, or fill our absentee ballots at home, shouldn’t we be looking for the person best qualified to fill the position, that’s what I do. To then revise history later on and say that it was not so much that the candidate was qualified, but that they were chosen to maintain a quota of sorts is dismissive of the democratic process.
It is shockingly offensive when two competent, qualified, and intelligent women have been boiled down to just their ethnicity when they are referenced by some residents in Alameda. The statement may not have been made to offend, but as a person of color, it offended me. Until there are little placards on the backs of the chairs labelling it as “Black” or “Asian” or “Gay/Lesbian” or “Middle Eastern” or “Surprise me” how about we refer to our councilpeople as representatives of all Alamedans and not just a seat to be filled by a person of a certain background?
Lauren, I’m shocked — didn’t you know? All the seats have been pre-ordained since the chartering of the city to hold people of certain persuasions. It’s not just ethnic. For instance, Frank M. does not hold the “Italian-American” seat; he holds the “person with bushy eyebrows” seat. And Doug DeHaan holds the “tall” seat. Or maybe it’s the “gray hair” seat. I forget which.
We should start thinking ahead to the next election cycle and determine which candidates will fill these various seats when the incumbents are termed out. At least having these “seats” makes it easier to choose our candidates so we don’t actually have to go by merit alone!
Comment by Dan W. — November 15, 2006 @ 8:47 am
gee, I wonder why nobody has touched this one yet. I guess it’s still sort of early.
As I’ve grown older, I think I’ve grown less tolerant in some ways, as reality, which is less ideal than what I entered adulthood with, grinds me into a cynic. But I still know right from wrong, I think.
I’m always surprised, but then again not, when a white person (like me), most often a stranger, walks up and makes some kind of blatant racist aside as if of course all us honkies share the same bigotry, and sometimes with the more aware brazen racist, it’s a way of saying, “And if you don’t agree, you are an idealistic fool.” I’m from Philly you see, the East Coast, where people aren’t afraid to get right up in your face over nothing.
Alone with other people I know well, I may speak in terms more blunt that those I’d use, say while blogging for instance. That company would not have to be white, just familiar. I grew up blue collar where kids could be real insulting and hateful, but we never played the “Dozens”. Didn’t know that one. Fresh from home as a hippie kid living in West Berkeley (cheap rent) I learned whose neighborhood I was living in when for the first time I was the object of racial epithets. That was when I began my slide into cynicism, but also learned the reality of the anger behind being discriminated against, and so I tried to grow thick skin and a sense of humor. “Whose neighborhood is it now mutha…?!” Just kidding! Ha-ha!
Stop squirming, I AM kidding. Blame my humor on Richard Prior. Prior went to Africa and afterwards disavowed using the “N” word. There’s hope for all of us, but it’s hard work.
All I can say to Caucasians who have a limited comfort level with minorities, in power or in general, is get used to it, because our majority status is not destined to last.
Comment by Mark — November 15, 2006 @ 9:06 am
Dan’s first, beat me to the punch while I was composing..
Comment by Mark — November 15, 2006 @ 9:08 am
Clearly there is a major bridge to be traversed between some major groups in this community on the question of race and how it has come up in our public democratic square.
The question is, how can there be a dialogue on these issues where the different sides actually listen to each other? where the conversation leads in a positive direction promoting harmony rather than hard feelings? where there are actual vehicles for carrying the dialogue forward?.
This is not a “why can’t we all get along?” plea. I share no illusions about how difficult this conversation can be. We’ve had a number of examples of failed attempts in Alameda.
Anybody have any suggestions?
Comment by Carl Halpern — November 15, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
It seems postings are pretty sparse here, but Dan pretty much nailed it from the git go.
Is it Dave Kerwin who likes to use “bloviate”, especially to characterize posts by Willy? Anyway, I thought my post might be over the top enough to draw fire from some quarter and so I would be keeping Dave K. company in the dog house (”Who let the dogs out? Whoof, whoof-woof.”) I was wondering whether to expect several paragraphs of bloviation from Dave in defense of his statements about an Asian seat. But no go. I’m not gloating Dave. I’m not one to suffer fools lightly, but the trouble with that one is, I am a fool, so I empathize if you are feeling sheepish. Not to worry, all things pass.
Months prior to discovering this blog I had looked into a place to post personal essays about Alameda. Blogs are chronological from the present backwards and I wanted to post the essays chronologically in the order they were written like a book. I think I might revive the blog and call it “Out of Bounds”. In the future, when I want to respond in a way which feels weird for this blog I can refer people to “Out of Bounds”. The object would not be to invite over the top arguments, but have a safe place to be vulnerable in having exchanges on really difficult issues. I have some thoughts on race in Alameda that I’m having a hard time considering how to articulate, but I’d like a safe venue to try to cross that threshold which is not this public (if there is such a thing in cyberspec). The feint of heart need not apply.
Comment by Mark — November 16, 2006 @ 11:49 pm