The Debate Link

Portlanders are very much fans of the slogan "keep Portland weird!" For the most part, I agree -- I'm generally a fan of Portland's various quirks and idiosyncrasies. I definitely count myself as a Portland booster!

Nonetheless, there are a few areas where it'd be nice for Portland to act like a normal American city. I'll give two examples:

1) Fluoridate our damn water, like a normal city!

Finding out Portland is the largest U.S. city to not fluoridate its water is I gather a rite of passage for new Portlanders. I always thought of anti-fluoridation activists as falling in the same category as anti-vaxxers and chemtrailers, and on reflection, I still do. There is absolutely no reason why Portland needs to have unfluoridated water.

73% of Americans have fluoridated water. It's clearly fine. Don't be weird about it.

2) Maintain your streets, like a normal city!

Before I talk about this, I need to briefly rant about Portland's street grid, which (particularly in the west part of the city where I live) is by far the most confusing of any city I've ever driven in. I hate driving in Portland, which is full of absurd seven way intersections and freeway entrances that look like alley ways and poorly signed lanes which inexorably force you to cross a bridge.

Still, all that, I can forgive -- in part because I respect that Portland's hilly geography probably makes a straight grid functionally impossible, in part because it's too late to fix now without digging the entire city up.

But what I can't fathom is why, throughout the city, random, seemingly normal streets are unmaintained by the city.

To be clear: I don't mean "the city has fallen behind in providing maintenance." What I mean is that there are many regular streets that get normal, local through traffic, that the city intentionally disclaims responsibility for maintaining.

This is the best explainer I've seen for the phenomenon, and it doesn't explain much. And it means that you could be driving to a friend's house only to discover that the route suddenly becomes a pot-hole ridden cart track. Check out this interactive map -- the random red portions? Those aren't maintained by the city. They're listed as "private" roads, even though for every relevant purpose they are just as public as any other road. They're not some isolated track that only connects a few houses over private property. They're part of the normal street grid! And this is encoded into statute somehow!

Here's an example from my own neighborhood. The subdivision I live in is 14 city blocks long, west to east. On the west side, most streets outlet onto the "main" road, but on the east side only one street does (Coronado). The only way out of my neighborhood going east is via Coronado. And wouldn't you know it if Coronado is unmaintained for its last four eastbound blocks, leading to giant gaping potholes on my unavoidable route to work each day. Coronado isn't all unmaintained -- from west to east it's (a) unmaintained for two blocks, (b) maintained by the city for six blocks, (d) non-existent for two blocks (it doesn't go through all the way), and (e) unmaintained again for the last four blocks.

Don't be weird Portland -- just take responsibility for your own street grid.

This NYT tool which lets you examine American Community Survey data for every neighborhood is, as Matt Yglesias says, pretty awesome.

It turns out that Hyde Park, for example, is relatively White close to the Midway (the proportion of White residents crashes south of 60th street), then gets progressively more and more integrated as you move north, until the White population basically disappears north of 47th Street.

Meanwhile, the census tract I live in now is nearly 70% White -- but borders a tract which apparently has 0 White residents.

Fascinating.

One of the typical arguments trotted out against official apologies for historical atrocities (slavery, genocide, apartheid, etc.) is that "we" (that is, the folks still alive) weren't the ones who did the wrong. Indeed, often times we're not even descended from the wrongdoers. So why should we say we're sorry?

In his discussion about Australia's upcoming apology for "the lost generation" (where Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families on the grounds that the Aborigines were going to die out soon anyway), John Quiggin flagged the best response to that argument I've heard yet, from Raimond Gaita's book A Common Humanity. Simply put, "any moral position allowing pride in the achievements of our forebears and our community necessarily entails shame in their failings."

So, if I express pride in America's fight for freedom in WWII, or the emancipation proclamation, or the development of democratic political theory as part of my identity as an "American", then I similarly as part of that identity must express shame for the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of Black Africans, and the other myriad failings of American society. They're part and parcel of the same commitment I have as a member of this community. But too many people want the sweet without any of the sour.

CNN's Political Ticker blog reports that the Rev. Jesse Jackson has accused Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama of "acting White" by not taking a more vocal stand on the Jena Six case. It's worth noting that Jackson says that he "does not recall" making such a statement, but I see no real reason to doubt the newspaper coverage.

My TMV co-blogger Angela Winters commented on the story, saying that epithets like "acting white" are simply "juvenile" and that Jackson is "assuming that any black public figure who doesn’t act in the way he thinks they should isn’t 'authentically black' because somehow he is the barometer of whatever 'authentically black' is."

All fair points, perhaps. But I think this particular iteration is an interesting twist on the "acting White" rhetorical saga that's worth noting in a bit more detail.

Generally, the phrase "acting White" has entered the public eye as a referent to Black youth seeking to tar their peers who excel academically. This, of course, is a bad thing, for it implies that authentic Blackness stands in opposition to intellectual pursuits. Thus, it is detrimental the construction of a positive, flourishing Black identity.

But Jackson's claim, as reported, is different. He's not arguing that Obama is "acting White" because he's too erudite. He's saying Obama is "acting White" because he's showing insufficient concern for social and racial justice. And as Angela says (and I agree), the Jena Six certainly is something that Presidential candidates should be speaking out on, because it is an appalling case of blatant injustice and Jim Crow railroading the likes of which should never be seen in contemporary America. Of course, as a White person, I'm not entirely thrilled that "lack of concern about racial justice" is considered to be a trait of my race. But I can't really deny that a strong segment of the White population does generally prefer to ignore these issues. And in any event, I can suck it up. But Jackson's definition of "authentic Blackness" is one that encompasses concern for justice, looking out for those who are still being oppressed in America's racial hierarchy, and not pulling the ladder up behind you once you've made it. Angela is perhaps right that Jackson doesn't really have the standing to issue such a decree. But would it really be such a bad thing for the Black community to construct its identity around these guidelines?

I definitely believe that a true Jew must show concern for the marginalized and the stranger even if our own position is secure ("for you were once strangers in a strange land"; the ethical relationship between Jews and strangers is one of the most repeated Biblical injunctions, appearing 35-40 times, far more often than the prohibition against killing). I construct the identity of "Jew" not solely in terms of biological properties or chanting certain words at certain times, but also a broader set of ethical and moral commitments which are every bit as integral to my Jewish personhood as are the more "traditional" ritualistic components. And in general, I have little real objection to constructing communal membership, at least in part, around certain shared ethical commitments that we can then press against our supposed compatriots ("press" not as physical coercion, but rather moral suasion). Indeed, so long as these principles are dynamic and open to analysis, debate, and critique, this strikes me as a better grounding for group membership than biological or ethnic essentialism. In any event, is it really that bad when the Black community expects/demands of its people that, regardless of power or position, they still remember their brothers and sisters who haven't yet made it, who are still (literally, in this case) in chains?

Even within this framework, I still think group identity should be constructed positively as who we are ("this is what it means to be Black") rather than who we're not ("not doing this makes you White"), because the latter denies the ability for intergroup commonalities and the capacity of people from all communities to learn and grow from each other. But that notwithstanding, I have trouble objecting to a vision of Blackness that incorporates social justice for all as part of its parameters. Certainly, its better than Blackness defined as opposing academic excellence. Perhaps we should try and nurture this thread, rather than stifle it at birth.