Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Of course there is crime in Alameda, committed by Alameda residents. (I can't think of where to find stats that match crimes with residence-of-perpetrator though.)
However, Oakland's crime rate is significantly higher, as is San Francisco's. Alameda's relatively low crime rate, whatever the reason, is one of the things that draws people here and keeps them here. I'll ask again: can an Alameda resident not express concern about Oakland crime spillover without automatically being accused of being a racist?
I really don't care about O'Malley and I'm not interested in defending her. I'm more interested in pointing out the irony/hypocrisy of people who, based on their own subconscious prejudices, add two and two to arrive at five, and then accuse some of being racist. That's problematic for many reasons, one of which it deflects attention from issues that should get covered - the defacto segregation of our schools, the AlCo DA's office prosecution of minorities (as you pointed out), O'Malley's rise to the DA position by acclamation instead of election, DA office opinions as published in their Point of View circular, etc.
There's no doubt that genuine racism and classism is present in Alameda. It especially plays out in the school system, witness someone who, defending the defacto segregation of Alameda elementary schools along race and class lines, responding to me to the effect of, "Edison school isn't 79% white it's only 72% white!"
It's also playing out in the current effort by AUSD to gin up support for a school bond to provide maintenance funds for no fewer than 17 (seventeen!) school campuses in Alameda, for fewer than 10,000 students. There are wealthy white folks in Alameda who don't want their kids mixing with the lower-income brown kids, so they work to make everyone pay these taxes, rather than consolidate elementary schools.
But I was making a different point, one which I'm afraid you aren't open to hear.
Nonetheless, I'll re-state it. When someone accuses, "You complain about Oakland crime spillover into Alameda, you must be racist!" It's actually saying a lot more about the accuser, because that sort of statement leaves an implicit "because we all know who's causing the crime in Oakland!" statement hanging in the air.
An accusation such as "You complain about Oakland crime spillover into Alameda, you must be racist!" suggests to me that it's the accuser assuming that it's only minorities responsible for the crime.
No doubt many of these same accusers are against the police making detentions on the basis of racial profiling. Such irony.
The upshot is that one is not free to express concern about Oakland's "nagging crime problems" (Steven T's phrase) without fear of being accused a racist. That's neither fair nor reasonable.
Actually, if the EB Express or EB Citizen wants to take shots at the D.A. or her office - an admittedly rich target - intrepid reporters should peruse some back issues of Point of View, the office's take on recently settled case law.
Therein, one will find opinions, particularly on cases lost by prosecutors (not just in AlCo), that would promote an erosion of civil liberties sure to make NSA officials proud.
Apparently, no rationale for upholding the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is good enough for Gotham county's DA office.
Disclaimer: I'm neither a friend nor foe of O'Malley, and I don't care about the In N Out burger one way or another.
I've always found these sorts of allegations - You complain about Oakland crime, so you must be racist! - to be a peculiar form of race-baiting.
So far as I understand, O'Malley never mentioned race, she talked about crime.
It's the author that introduced race into the discussion, and connected it with Oakland's "nagging crime problems."
Think about that for a second. Does the author intend to suggest that Oakland's nagging crime problems can be attributed solely to non-whites? Because that's one takeaway from the article, a suggestion that "one is racist for complaining about Oakland crime spillover, because crime in Oakland is crime committed by minorities."
I know Steven, and I doubt that was his deliberate intent.
However, I've seen many other people in Alameda follow the same path, and it's worth questioning what unconscious prejudices they may bring to the discussion. See how quick they go from "Crime in Oakland" to "African Americans." It's those people that need to re-evaluate their attitudes.
And ironically, if Wikipedia is accurately citing 2010 US Census data, 'whites' are the leading demographic group in Oakland, at 34.5% with African-Americans coming in second at 28%
When someone says "crime in Oakland," why do YOU automatically assume they're talking about African-Americans, or Hispanics, or any other non-white ethnic group?
And can't someone be concerned about crime in Oakland, irrespective of the race of the perpetrators?
Hmm... even Pete calls himself the prince of "smoked meat"...
I wish them all the best, as even a decent corned beef or pastrami sandwhich is hard to find in the Bay area, but when/where in QC did they ever call it "smoke meat"?
These faded signs from a downtown Montreal landmark, Bens, refer to it as "smoked meat."
The "No" side is looking for volunteers to observe the recount as well. Contact me and I'll refer you, or contact https://twitter.com/@SOCAlameda
All Comments »
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation