|
|
| Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) (468218) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jul 29 18:47:25 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 29 14:55:41 2007. From a previous message:"Now if someone can show that there was an effort to build little green areas, gardens, and parks on vacant land in Harlem, and Moses put a stop to it, while doing nothing himself to add greenery, then you might have a case he was a racist when it came to parks too." ------ I will restate a portion of one of my previous messages: "Robert Moses who through his Parks Department built almost no swimming pools, parks and playgrounds in areas where poor and minority folk lived was sending a very clear public policy message... This is not about racism, as we commonly understand it today. One does not have to be racist in thought for one's deeds to have a discriminatory impact. Not only was he in charge of the Parks Department, but also in his lifetime he was in charge of or heavily influenced 12-16 different public agencies and authorities at the same time." "Some may think that a bus trip to a picnic that takes a bit of time ... is not an example of a kind of discrimination... Often these folks truly fail to understand that the nature of racism, prejudice and discrimination - it’s usually not in the major activities, but in the small almost comical mundane common everyday kinds of statements, activities, actions, rules and practices. This happens to such an extent that such a discriminatory affair becomes "normal"." I (Michael549) ever called Robert Moses racist, or a racist, or in any of my messages accused him of racism. What I said that he (and or the people under him) made a series of policy decisions that in demonstratable ways had a discriminatory impact. I agree that Robert Moses built plenty of playgrounds, but when the distribution of such playgrounds favor a "certain group of people" and at the same "disfavor another group of people" - then it is a fair question to ask "what is going on?" When one looks at the reasoning behind such policy decisions, and also at the implications of those policy decisions - one does have to wonder. For example in the quoted text Robert Moses questions the cost of smaller playgrounds, the need to tear down tenements, the relocation of tenants, etc. All of these are laudable questions. However coming from a man who routinely tore down buildings for his highways and other projects, paid extreme amounts for public improvements, gave residents little time to move or to find new homes -- it kind of rings hollow. One could suggest that this period, the 1930's it was early in his career, and that the concerns were real. Why would anyone want the Parks Department to build little parks when the private sector could so? In your suggestion that community leaders could take junk filled lots and turn them into parks - there is a missing point. The owner of said junk filled lots at any time could always take back their property and use it for any purpose that they want. Usually property owners can get a better return on their investment than in using it as a park where children play for free. The owner has to pay property taxes, and few see much of a return on their investment with parks. That is the major reason why there is little parkland available in the city, if the Parks Department does not build it. That also happens to be reason for why the Parks Department was created in the first place to give the city "lungs - breathing space" - because there were no places for children to play except the streets. Mike |
|
|
|