Blacksmythe

In response to a followup note on my post on local government, Keith Owens asks:

When you say “a series of self-sustaining societies” what do you mean exactly? I think I may have an idea, but I want to make sure I’m clear on what you’re saying.”

Right now cities are designed for a uniquely mid-twentieth century purpose. They exist as a hub for labor, for manufacturing, for distribution. External capital creates and sustains them. Damn near every significant institution in the city is designed to reproduce this system. Education for example is designed to produce workers/mid-level managers/executives for industry. In a city like Detroit even the churches fit in this model-at least they used to.You could distinguish the powerful churches from the not-so-powerful by how many Ford Motor Co. jobs they could provide.

The strength of this city model is pretty clear. When industry rolls, the city rolls.

But the weakness of the model is not just the flipside of that (when industry fails, so does the city).

The model itself is not sustainable. Not environmentally, as twentieth century industry leaves a pretty toxic footprint. Not economically. Profit margins cannot continue to increase, and even if we take economic cycles into consideration over the long haul the peaks will decrease in size because of diminishing returns, competitors, market saturation, etc.

Finally it is not sustainable politically. As markets free up and capital becomes more and more mobile firms (as a partial result of government action) leave for better economic climates–first outside the city, then later outside of the country. To compete for those firms the best governments can do is reduce the tax burden. Reducing the tax burden means in effect reducing the ability of government to provide services to citizens. This in turn further neuters the citizens.

Now the thing is, at its best the twentieth century model of the city lasted a good 60 years or so. But that’s about it. And while cities like New York may very well last in something like its present form for another 100 years, there are a whole range of rustbelt cities that have not, and will not. Cities like Gary and Detroit are now full of literally thousands of citizens who are trained for jobs that no longer exist, and as a result are unemployable. In Detroit? I’d estimate that about 300,000 citizens in Detroit could easily work on the assembly line if this were 1965, but cannot find meaningful employment now.

So what type of vision can we generate for these cities that put these people to work, and give meaning to their lives?

This is where the idea of self-sustaining societies come from. We’ve got to create a model of living that both generates a life of meaning and purpose for everyone with the physical capacity to work, we’ve got to create a model of living that is not based on the vagaries of global capital, but on local development and modest growth. This means revisiting the idea of community, and perhaps reframing it. This means generating a new more transparent form of politics. This means identifying different means of feeding ourselves. And this definitely means a different way of educating our citizens.

Does this make sense?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Posts that contain Shaquanda Cotton per day for the last 30 days.

Get your own chart!

I first heard about the Shaquanda Cotton case through my former student Frederic Mitchell at his spot. I didn’t post on it myself. Rather, I decided to do an NPR commentary on it (that will probably come out later today). But Temple3, and Prometheus6 both jumped on it (Temple3 from an email I relayed to him, and Prometheus6 from Qusan).

When Witt reported it, he was relatively clueless about the way that blogs work and the existence of black bloggers. No more.

I picked the graph above from technorati. As you can see “Shaquanda Cotton” goes from being pretty much invisible to getting around 80 or so blog hits. Another measure is here. For Witt this is proof of the growing power of black bloggers, the internet as an organizing tool, and an example of the continuing role of newspapers.

Since I’ve been doing this here thing, (and before this the other thing) I’ve thought about what the role of black bloggers should be, to the extent that they identify as black and want to engage in explicit state-centered politics of some sort. Some would say that part of our role is to counter the information that comes from non-black bloggers, specifically on racial issues, but on a variety of issues in general. I don’t have a dog in that hunt. Someone should do it, and I probably do it from time to time.

But I think a more important role is speaking directly to each other and using our connections to further develop the notion of what I call open source politics. Partially as a result of the increased scrutiny engendered by black bloggers, the Cotton case (and the prison she was sent to) is being reviewed. Note that this occurs without Revs. Jackson or Sharpton getting involved (Sharpton is said to be “thinking” about doing it). If this isn’t cell based leadership I’m not sure what is .

Waxing nostalgic, Earl talks about the dissolution of the types of networks that black people used during Jim Crow. But he’s wrong here. The network never went away. I’m not sure how you get from Michigan to Alabama for seven days with barely $30 to my name without people willing to look out. What we need to do is take the networks that we currently have and simply repurpose them a bit.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Kobe’s been on a tear over the past week, prompting at least one to proclaim that he’s better than No. 23. Now whether folks think this position is right or wrong, is really immaterial. At this point in the game no one is better at what Kobe does. And off the top of my head I can only think of two people who are as good at what they do (or better) than Kobe is at what he does.

In a recent post, Lindell Singleton dissects what makes Kobe successful. Here I’m not talking about his work ethic, I’m talking about how he uses the dribble to create space, about his economy. Basketball is an art, but to a certain extent it is rocket science. Lindell:

Bryant’s dribble attack sequences emanate from a precise ability to move defenders– to bring them either upright in their stance– or, encourage them to shift their body weight. The moves may be ‘flashy’ at times,. but they are founded on solid basketball pedagogy.

Lindell’s argument is that Kobe is a direct descendant of old school basketball great Jerry West. I’m not sure I buy his argument that West was better than Jordan, but I don’t have a problem in tracing a line from West to West. Where I’d disagree is in Lindell’s closing:

[Bryant] isn’t part of some new generation of basketball player that’s turning the game into a ‘hip-hop’ club; but instead, his game is a sacred homage to men who bask on the pantheon of basketball greatness. West, nor Baylor were ever called selfish–and, they shot the ball all the time. Scoring, in basketball, is not democratic– it is meritocratic.

I understand what Lindell’s trying to do. There are a number of people who ignore Kobe’s success, claiming he’s self-centered, brash, and difficult to be around. And it doesn’t take much to make a move from this position to hip-hop, claiming that Kobe’s behavior is part of a much larger problem with the current NBA. Saying that Kobe isn’t turning the game into a ‘hip-hop’ club is really a short cut for “we shouldn’t treat Kobe as if he’s the same as these other selfish NBA players who care more about themselves than they do about the game.

But it’s an unfair one on two counts.

Hip-hop at its best is about taking what was, acknowledging it, and making it new again. It’s about taking someone like James Brown, and introducing him to an entirely new fanbase through the innovative use of sampling. It’s about lyrical dexterity and split-second improvisation. It is possible that Kobe IS hip-hop AND old-school at the same time. And given that Kobe actually DID cut a hip-hop record (eminently forgettable but still), I’d say it is more than possible.

Further there is a kind of historical amnesia that may be uniquely American. There is nothing particularly majestic about the NBA of the sixties, seventies, and even eighties. Rampant racism, poor salaries, very little player autonomy, and massive drug use…not to mention porous defenses.

Lindell (and the rest of us) should be able to recognize Kobe’s greatness as part of a longer thread, while at the same time understanding the fundamentally modern components of his game that emanate from and are part and parcel OF hip-hop. Among other things.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/nqM4tKPDlR8" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Thanks to my man Mark.

Bookmark It