Letter to Globe Editor re: Dudley Square "Revitalization"

April 21, 2006

To the Editor:

Your article on concerns about the “revitalization” of Dudley Square (“Renewal stirs worry in Dudley Square, A1, April 21) brought up tough issues. The basic problem is that ever since the institution of slavery, the color of money in the U.S. has been white: white people are statistically in possession and control of most of the nation’s wealth and resources.

For this unfair system of resource distribution to continue functioning, we white people must not examine the assumptions of the superiority of white people that are embedded in our thinking, our institutions, and U.S. culture at large. Joyce Stanley, executive director of Dudley Square Main Streets, who is quoted as saying “The employees around here say most of the products around here are geared toward black people […] and they won’t buy them,” is simply voicing two basic premises of our society and economy: that “people”—here, “employees” –are understood to be white unless specifically identified; and that the concerns, needs, and desires of people who happen to be white are more important than those of people who happen to be black or other ‘colors.’

Until we white people address the many unequal privileges and forms of power we inherited at all levels of our individual and civic life, we all know what to expect in the long run as Dudley Square is “revitalized.” The question is, are we content to accept this outcome? And if not, how shall we work with other white people and with people of color to prevent it from happening?

Yours,

Mark Schafer

Our Politicians are not practicing what they preach

While I commend many people who can afford to put their children in private schools, it is the racist mentality/paradigm of the priviledged and those who are in public office, who contribute to maintaining the status quo and the disparity between the "haves and have nots." The Boston Globe touched it but could of delved deeper. Where's the truth? The reality is the Boston Public Schools have a lower tax base, the resources i.e. computer labs, afterschools programs, lavatories, etc are below average compared to those that are private and in the surburbs.

If you walk into a Boston public school, you will see that it is racially segregated and Black and Latino youth make up 90%+ of the population. Many of the students are from the local communities and are subjected to minimal services and resources. More importantly, there is a lack of seasoned educators and teachers in the BPS, therefore, the quality of the education is vastly different.

What's contradictory to me is that many of our politicans are advocating for improvement in our public schools but many of their kids attend private and prep school. Does it have anything to do with race? I bet you it does. The Globe article talks about the values, the structure, dress code, expectations, of private schools but it's safe to assume that our politicans do not even trust or have little faith the Boston Public Educational school setting but are not doing anything but talking about the problems. It's easy to make a connection to the fact that Many(not all) of our politicans are White and they are segregating their children from the minority kids in the Boston Public Schools and putting them in schools with White, priviledged kids.

This article by the Boston Globe does not address the real issue!


The article:

4 in race opt for private schools
Cite benefits for their children
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff April 17, 2006

Four of the five candidates running for governor have sent their children to elite private schools, even as they pledge to devote themselves to improving public Massachusetts schools if elected to the state's top job.
Republican Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, independent Christy Mihos, and Democrats Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli all decided to send their children to private schools with annual tuition about $20,000. Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who calls himself the only non-millionaire in the race, is the sole candidate whose three daughters attended public schools, in Watertown.

Forgoing Milton schools, Patrick's elder daughter followed her father's footsteps to Milton Academy, and his younger daughter attends a private boarding school out of state. Mihos's two children, raised in Cohasset, attended Derby Academy in Hingham and St. George's in Newport, R.I.

Gabrieli, who has made headlines for advocating for extended public school days, sends four of his five children to private schools. One daughter attends The Winsor School for girls in Boston, two go to Southfield School for girls in Brookline, and a son, now at Fessenden School in West Newton, will be heading to Roxbury Latin School in West Roxbury. The fifth child is in nursery school.

Healey, who lives in Beverly, sends her two children to Shore Country Day School there. In an interview with the Globe and New England Cable News last week, Healey said she made the decision ''because I want my kids to be in an environment where they can talk about values and talk about perhaps values in a way that you can't always do in a public school setting, and I want uniforms and I want a very structured environment for my kids."

Photo placement shows racist Priorities in Globe

Voters Sought - Boston Globe Tuesday March 28, 2006

On page A3 there was a picture placed in the Globe showing two Black women who were evacuees of Katrina. the words under the pictured read - "'While clothes were given to Katrina evacuees last month in Houston, Linda Jeffers, asked a displaced New Orleans resident, Illmada Shedrick, to register to vote as an absentee. A judge yesterday kept the date for the stricken city's mayoral election April 22.'

Upon seeing this picture I was looking forward to reading more about it. Well, there wasn't any more since it stated, (after looking at the picture four times), to turn to page A4 for more details. The article on page four made no ties to what the picture was portraying. This was an editorial decision to play down the story behind this picture. It was not as important as the Lame Duck article about President Bush on the same page. Aren't the voting rights of the New Orleans victims much more important? That picture should have been followed up with an article on the same page. I definitely think so. Don't you?

Boston Globe article on federal Mashpee recognition misses the point

Today’s front-page article in the Boston Globe by Megan Tench and Michael Kranish, titled “Mashpees near federal recognition” equates native tribes with casino-owning and completely overlooks any other benefits the tribe may enjoy by finally being federally recognized.

There are 25 paragraphs in the article. Half of them (13), including the opening and closing paragraphs, explicitly discuss the potential of the Mashpees to open a casino if the federal recognition goes through a year from now. Three paragraphs delve into Mashpee ties with “the scandal surrounding former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.” That leaves nine paragraphs in the article to provide further information.

Of these nine, six provide basic background information, such as the number of members in the tribe and explanations of the legal process. Only three hint at the deeper meaning that federal recognition may have for the Mashpee.

This article has the effect of equating Native American tribes with casinos and gambling, blatantly ignoring tribal chairman Glenn Marshall’s comment that “I don’t have anything to say about [gambling] … This is not about gaming. This is about recognition. Right now, my focus is on health, housing, and education.”

How does federal recognition impact health, housing, and education? Why was tribe member Doris Middleton “sobbing” upon hearing the news? What does this victory, after a 31-year battle with the US government, mean to the Mashpee? Tell us more about Marshall’s statement that this marks “the first day of peace with the US national government.”
We won’t answers to these questions in the article by Tench and Kranish. Although “the tribal leaders did not want to discuss gambling,” that clearly didn’t matter to these journalists. The headline to the article says “Final approval could open up casino talks” and this is the only point they wished to convey.