Light weekend reading

This is going up late Saturday, so our hope is that you read it either tomorrow or Monday. It's a very well thought out edition of Councilmember Tom Butt's e-mail forum that reiterates a point made by new Tazer friend Ixion2020. Coincidence?

Tom Butt = Ixion2020? Only one way to know for sure, but please read on...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following are articles from the Richmond Globe and the Berkeley Daily Planet about Richmond’s mayoral race. [EDITOR'S NOTE: We're not reprinting those articles; feel free to Google for them if you like, they're online for you to find.]

The Globe appears to blame Gary Bell for stealing African-American votes from Irma Anderson. Why isn’t anybody suggesting the opposite -- that the unpopular Anderson should have stepped aside for Bell? With the theory seemingly endorsed by the Globe that politics are predominantly racist in Richmond, Bell could have easily won with his and Irma’s votes, thus preserving the African-American mayorship that the Globe seems to prefer. The Globe noted, “…historians may place blame at Bell’s feet, labeling him as the politician responsible for the downfall of African American political prominence in the city of Richmond.” I submit that the blame lies, instead, squarely with Irma Anderson, whose lack of vision and leadership failed to inspire the electorate and brought out the worst in the City Council. And with those who blindly supported Anderson and shoveled money without end at her while knowing full well her substantial and ultimately fatal flaws.

The second article, from the Berkeley Daily Planet, is the first I’ve seen that details the vast corporate and industrial resources, significant amounts of which were funneled through BAPAC, which is closely aligned with the Globe, invested in preserving Irma Anderson as mayor.

I have always hoped that we would reach a time in Richmond where race is not the prevailing criteria for local elections. When I first ran for City Council in 1993, racism was right out front. Mailers targeted to the African-American community, usually paid for by Firefighters Local 188 and masterminded by Darrell Reese, tried to convince voters that rich white folks in Point Richmond would make sure African-Americans stayed at the back of the bus. I’m not kidding! We’ve come a long way from there in some respects, but in others, we haven’t. It’s much more subtle now, and perhaps more pernicious.

I have always been skeptical that there are really any race-related agendas in Richmond. From what I can tell, everyone wants the same things: safe and attractive neighborhoods, high-quality schools, good streets and clean parks, customer-friendly and responsive city employees and thrifty and efficient government.

Do people really believe that candidates who match their skin color or have last names that sound similar can deliver these things better than someone who doesn’t? According to the Globe analysis, they do. Do voters place a higher priority on race and ethnicity than on results? I just don’t know.

During the 90s, African-American women were consistently the top vote getters in City Council races where there had to be a substantial crossover vote to make that possible (Anderson and Penn). After the millennium, women still ruled (Viramontes). The prevailing wisdom among election watchers was that in the new order, gender had become more important than race. Except that in the last two elections, white men were the top vote getters (Butt and Rogers). But whites are the smallest of three major minorities in Richmond. Go figure.

Regardless of race and ethnicity, women have consistently fared better than men in the mayor’s race (Corbin, Anderson and McLaughlin). Is there sexism out there?

In the Globe analysis, whites voted for McLaughlin and African-Americans voted for Bell or Anderson, thus splitting the African-American vote and leaving McLaughlin a (presumed) winner. Is it really that simple? If Bell had not been in the race, would Anderson have prevailed in a landslide? I’m not so sure. What about the Latino voters? Did they vote racially, or did they vote for the person they thought could be the best mayor?

I’ll end this where I started it. I know that there are a lot of racists in Richmond – of every racial, chromatic and ethnic persuasion. I just hope I live long enough to see all that go away and find people voting for the candidate they believe will deliver to them the best quality of life.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, Brother Butt!

Racism is ugly and wrong, no matter who espouses or utters it, and the Globe should be ashamed for publishing that tripe. If they had even the merest drop of integrity, they'd fire the bigot who penned it and apologize profusely. Of course, if they had integrity, it would've never seen the light of day to begin with, so we're not holding our breath...

And if they Globe won't, we're not about to boycott them or advocate a boycott. Just pick up spare copies to use for fishwrap, birdcage liner, glass cleaning, and kindling. THAT'S WHAT RAGS ARE FOR!