Irene,Your post can easily be read as insinuating that those who criticize corruption and malfeasance in office by African Americans do so out of racism. I'm sure that's not what you meant to imply, for not only is it absurd, it's insulting as well. You further seem to imply that Dolphin and I are apparently too stupid to recognize corruption in white politicians and office holders or that we are indifferent to their crimes (being likewise white).
Furthermore, if you knew Mayor Willie Herenton, you would know that he has no problem whatsoever liking himself. He has actually claimed that he's mayor because God wants him to be. This is Herenton's 17th year as mayor of Memphis. I was very excited when he was first elected in 1991. And I voted for him twice after that mostly because he is African American, and I thought it imperative that the old White Planter Mentality that had ruled Memphis for 150 years be thoroughly quashed. And it was. Too thoroughly perhaps. It has been replaced by over arching arrogance and disdain for anyone who disagrees with His Honor or dares to question his integrity. A man who plays the race card with every hand.
I'm sure that you did not mean to imply those things, that you were simply voicing support for the African American community, and God knows, support is needed, especially in this racially divided city. But why you felt the need to do so in reply to our posts, I don't know, certainly neither of us has made any untoward remarks in regard to African Americans, only in reference political corruption.
In regard to Kunstler's thesis, I can't comment with anything but my own prejudices which I do freely and frequently share. I will say that Memphis and Nashville are very, different cities. The demographics are different (Memphis is 60% black, 30% white, while Nashville is the flip of that) the geography is very different (Memphis is flat delta land, Nashville is lovely hill country) the economics are very different (Memphis is poor, Nashville is much richer). Why Kunstler would select the South as study in suburbanization, I don't know. There are not very many large cities (over a million people) in the South. Atlanta is one, and yes, it's surrounded by suburbs, but most of the population there are not indigenous to the South, I think. Houston and Dallas are large cities as well, and again, I would be very surprised if the majority of people living there are Southern born and in any event, I count Texas as Western, not Southern. The Memphis metropolitan population is 1.3 million and Nashville's is 1.5, but the cities proper count only half that. Memphis is ranked the 18th largest by city population, but only 41st by metropolitan population. My point is that while suburbanization is true of the South, it is far less a factor than other parts of the country. How the world will adjust to shortages in oil supply seems more pressing for cities like New York and LA and Philadelphia than for cities like Nashville.
In order to thrive economically, Nashville had to identify itself with everything "country."
Nashville is the 2nd largest (NYC is 1st) music production center in the US. That's not "country music". It's a $6.5 billion industry and employs over 19,000 people. Hardy, your "Grand Ole Opry" operation. But music is not the major industry in Nashville, Health Care is. With over 250 different Health Care companies headquartered in Nashville, -- an $18 billion industry -- it employs over 94,000 people. Kunstler's cartoonish image of Nashville makes me question the quality of his research.
Socially, suburbanization represented a decisive victory over everything thought to be represented by city life, especially things thought to be effete and unmanly, like the traditional arts. Of course the ersatz country folk of suburbia had their own art, country music, but wearing large hats immunized its practitioners against effeteness and made it manly.
Arrant nonsense. >So, life imitating art killed
Nashville.
I didn't know Nashville was dead. I'll have to tell my relatives there.
It strikes me too that segregation is a form of species-wide dissociative disorder, or Jungian Shadow.
Segregation? Meaning what?
What we don't like in ourselves we collectivize and project onto others.
Speak for yourself.
That doesn't explain widespread white corruption, but it does explain acceptance of widespread white corruption.
Acceptance by whom?
In fact, not only acceptance of white corruption, but of downright humility in the face of it, as we look in awe at the robber barons and other mostly illegally amassed white money, including the CEO's of pharma and on and on.
Speak for yourself -- again.----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy" <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:51 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: BRAGGING RIGHTS
White people are corrupt too, very corrupt, and for the same reasons as black people, which is that they don't like themselves very much. Somehow it's not as noticeable when white people are corrupt. Why is that? White corruption is like wallpaper, in the background, just business as usual. I just finished reading James Kunstler's book. His basic premise is that suburbanization will be unsustainable in a world growing shorter on oil. Here's what he says about Nashville, which may or may not be extrapolatable to Memphis (three paragraphs). It's in the section on what he hypothesizes will happen to different regions as oil winds down by mid-21st century, in this case to the Old South: Page 281. ... The result [of an abundance of cheap fossil fuels] was a region that would base its economy largely on suburban expansion. Cheap land was plentiful across the South and the region was culturally predisposed to an antiurban bias. In the minds of most developers, suburban development was the logical, natural way of improving country life. The fact that it decimated rural landscapes and rural lifeways didn't seem to matter, because by the mid-twentieth century in the American southland, rural life was more about being in cars (or trucks) than growing cotton, with all the horrors of serfdom implied in that form of agriculture. If anything, postwar southerners tried to forget what rural life had really been about for them and their ancestors, and manufactured a sentimental version to replace it, which was later sold back to them in the form of commodities such as popular music, corporate religion, and theme park admissions. Nashville is a good example of how this mentality worked. Prior to WWII, Nashville had some legitimate claim to being if not exactly a great city, then a large town of consequence. It called itself "the Athens of the South." It had a full-sized replica of the Parthenon in one of its parks and a world-class university (Vanderbilt) with a cultivated international faculty. As the region became more affluent in the 1960's, country music became an important "industry," with Nashville designated its "capital." In order to thrive economically, Nashville had to identify itself with everything "country." This meant, paradoxically, repudiating its qualities as a town. Nashville therefore did an excellent job of destroying most of its center in an orgy of late-twentieth-century "urban renewal," while the stars of country music settled in suburban villas outside of town, that is, in the "country," along with their fans, who didn't want to have anything to do with the town, whose remaining inhabitants were predominately the descendants of deracinated African American sharecroppers. Socially, suburbanization represented a decisive victory over everything thought to be represented by city life, especially things thought to be effete and unmanly, like the traditional arts. Of course the ersatz country folk of suburbia had their own art, country music, but wearing large hats immunized its practitioners against effeteness and made it manly. Eventually, its holiest shrine, the Grand Ole Opry, moved out of its downtown auditorium into a cheapjack plastic theme park in the suburban hinterlands. End of excerpt. So, life imitating art killed Nashville. It strikes me too that segregation is a form of species-wide dissociative disorder, or Jungian Shadow. What we don't like in ourselves we collectivize and project onto others. We then disenfranchise economically and socially that rejected part of ourselves and turn around and say, oh look, they're this and that. That doesn't explain widespread white corruption, but it does explain acceptance of widespread white corruption. In fact, not only acceptance of white corruption, but of downright humility in the face of it, as we look in awe at the robber barons and other mostly illegally amassed white money, including the CEO's of pharma and on and on.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html