New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again, says Ray Nagin

At a MLK function today, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin commented on the future of New Orleans.



Now, obviously N.O. was predominantly black before Hurricane Katrina.

Yet, Is Mayor Nagin helping to widen the divide between Whites and Blacks within New Orleans with his comments?

Yup, he is, but between the media's misreporting and yellow journalism regarding Hurricane Katrina, as well as the statements of other black moonbats (Belafonte, Farrakhan, Kanye) in recent months, I don't think he'll actually do much damage unless the "Black Establishment" rallies vigourously to his defense. As an aside, it certainly won't help New Orleans' image...

Don't forget this:

As we think about rebuilding New Orleans, surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country. Surely he’s not approval (sic) of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also.” - Ray Nagin


Will "the Usual Suspects" who squawked over Pat Robertson's observation regarding Sharon and Falwell's observation regarding 9/11 grab their rhetorical pitchforks, bust down the faggots **, light 'em and angrily mob forth to slay the horrid evil theocratic monster, or will Nagin get yet another pass?

Grace and peace, BD

** fag·ot also fag·got ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fgt)
n.
A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.

Middle English, from Old French, from Old Provençal, possibly from Vulgar Latin *facus, from Greek phakelos, bundle.

Yes.

Ugh, this is another case of a racial double standard that will be allowed by liberals, and conservative's yells will fall upon deaf ears. Nagin sounds like he is suggesting something like Hitler's "Final Solution", but he's not advocating killing whites to have a mostly-black N.O. ... yet. If he didn't get his way of a mostly-black N.O., he would rely on coercion to get whites out of the city, and I do in fact believe that if there was a KKK equivalent for black people, Nagin would be in it.

He perpetuates racism, and liberals don't understand it, and it wrecks America.

I think whites now need an MLK.

What the hell is a chocolate New Orleans?


Please tell me this statement is another example of whites misinterpreting idiosyncratic forms of expressions like Tyler Perry’s Madea stage playwrights?

Is Mayor Nagin helping to widen the divide between Whites and Blacks within New Orleans with his comments?

I’d say so, to keep his leadership post. I don’t want NO to come back bigger and badder as … a tame gated community resort, but pandering to race? Come on. His inarticulateness and demagoguery invites that unfortunate outcome.


Did you have a change of heart concerning sectarian prayer before opening legislative sessions, BD? Welcome to the club!

Being a Louisiana Native, I can understand what the mayor is saying. Simply put, the NO communities that were predominantly black are under water, and the people coming back are not black.

There are a large number of apprehensions in the existing New Orleans communities that the demographics of the city will change, based on simple socio-economics. It would be very difficult for economically disadvantaged people to make it back to New Orleans and start over. There aren't places to live, jobs to take, and opportunities for growth in New Orleans.

The problem with the Mayor's statements is that it placates a generally divisive black mentality that it's socially acceptable to make blatently racist remarks on the national stage. If any other race of person made a similar remark (outside of a comedy club) it would be lambasted as something awful and terribly biggoted.

I think that the Mayor's actions are less a product of his prejudice than a product of societal acceptance of such remarks...

I doubt he's doing it intentionally, but yes, it certainly looks that way.

Unlike most other posters so far, the statement that made my jaw drop wasn't the chocolate stuff (which sounds to me just like another hippy-dippy "coffee-coloured people" sentiment) but the "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

HUH??

I get the bit about "You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans." If for no other reason than that he's an elected politician, and white America doesn't have a long and noble history of electing black politicians like Nagin (or any other kind). He wants to keep his job - not very noble, perhaps, but understandable self-interest.

But "It's the way God wants it to be.

double- HUH????

Where does that come from??

Is New Orleans mentioned in the Bible? Maybe in the Second Letter of St Paul to the Louisianans?

Are African Americans? "Blessed are the dark-skinned, for they shall give the qualities of cacao-based confectionery to the places in which they live"??

Or does he just have an unusual phone set up in his office, like some kind of born-again Commissioner Gordon? "Mr Mayor - it's the GodPhone!"

Is there no end to the assumptions of public gullible religiosity by US politicians? Do they really think their electorates are so simple-minded that the merest mention of God gives whatever they say - no matter how stupid - the ring of truth? Does it work? If it does, are Americans REALLY that simple-minded?

No, I don't think so, given Nagin's race-based (i.e., racist) rhetoric in the past. If it were Nagin's intent to call for a revitalized color-blind city, he could have simply called for a majority American city, one that benefits from a rainbow of colors, multicultural blah blah blah...

Nope, he didn't, and he directly linked "chocolate" with "majority African-American."

Gotta give him points for nifty footwork though, "chocolate milk." Priceless. Hasn't the multicultural Left pilloried Thomas Jefferson for allegedly mixin' chocolate?


No, why would I have a change of heart? If my mocking hyperbole has set such hopes aflutter, I apologize.


No, it doesn't work. I will point out though that Americans on the whole are also not so simple-minded as to reject outright anything that has God overtones...

BTW, Nagin got rid of his Godphone and got himself a cellphone from Wal-Mart. He didna want the NSA listening in...

In a word: no.

How is Mayor Nagin stating his desire to keep a city that was predominantly African-American predominantly African-American in the future "widening the divide between Whites and Blacks?"

Nagin has no desire to see New Orleans rebuilt as a combination of a tacky tourist trap and a gentrified playground of housing projects, upscale stores and loft apartments priced outside of the incomes of Black working class citizens. Neither do I. But there are plans on the table that would do exactly that. Cherry-picking what parts of New Orleans are "viable" based upon on racial economics is widening the divide between Whites and Blacks in NOLA far more than the mayor's remarks.

I'm also sure the allusion to a "chocolate New Orleans" is based in part on the phrase "chocolate city and its vanilla suburbs" from the Parliament song, "Chocolate City."

Other "chocolate cities" surrounded by "vanilla suburbs" would include Detroit, Atlanta and Cleveland.

Stating a city is predominantly Black isn't racism. That's just demographics.

I think what he is trying to say, poorly, is that New Orleans was great because of the predominant black culture there. In order to really understand this you really have to have visited and known New Orleans before Katrina.

He's talking about things like the rich history of Jazz and music, the food, the culture, etc but I suppose it would have been better if he said that instead of what he said.

I also feel that he is concerned that when New Orleans is rebuilt it is going to be the land of pricey condos and not the city that it once was. This is a legitimate concern I just hope for the sake of the city it isn't as bad as some believe.

So in short, what we have here is a public official that isn't really all that great at expressing his ideas. I knew what he meant when he said that because I know the city, but I can understand and appreciate that other people wouldn't take it the same way.

I understand this part. I don’t even question his desire to keep the New Orlean's culture and private homes intact, if it’s possible. But…


NT, if it was a white politician stating he wanted to keep a white city predominantly white after a natural disaster, would you frown and think “business as usual?”

Fair enough. Where citing God's will has some sort of foundation in scripture, I can see how it need not be rejected out of hand (if one sets store by such things). Where is clearly has bugger all to do with it, as here, I bet we can agree it ought to be rejected out of hand.

Cube & nighttimer





Ah, now it makes much more sense. To be honest, I suspected that his comments might have been just clumsy, or intended for a narrow subset of his wide audience, rather than intentionally divisive. And, as I said, it wasn't really the sentiment or the chocolate references that raised by eyebrows. No, it was my eyebrow-raising muscles involuntarily contracting when I read the bit about God having an opinion one way or the other on the racial make-up of American cities.

So it seems to be just abit bit of clumsy phraseology.

What a surprise for a leading US politician to have trouble with his words....

**cough** "new-kew-lar weapons", anyone? **cough**

Is Mayor Nagin helping to widen the divide between Whites and Blacks within New Orleans with his comments?

I found the "chocolate" statement just weird. I dismiss Nagin's assertion that the hurricanes were because "God is mad" as I did Pat Robertson's remarks (although I do personally think that God doesn't like the Iraq war). That kind of rhetoric is a device used to keep fearful people in line. The only difference is, I would assert, that clergymen claim that they speak for God at least slightly more often than politicians do, especially those with an international network audience.

I do think that the chocolate city remark does serve to polarize, rather than express the commonality of the suffering that those who lived and worked in the New Orleans area have experienced, the dark chocolate plus white milk explanation notwithstanding.

(Would it be possible for some of our conservative posters not to assume that all liberals are "moonbats" even as not all conservatives are "wingnuts"? I wonder. It's getting tedious when the assumption is made that all liberals are anti-God as well.)

Maybe if it was a public official in Simi Valley, Orange County, Hyannis Port or other enclaves where Caucasians frolic and kick back, but I take your point, Lesly.

If Mayor Nagin is guilty of anything it's allowing his mouth to outrace his brain. But speaking in politically incorrect terms is not always the same thing as being a flaming bigot.

Come on, Nighttimer. What do you think would happen if a mayor of a predominantly white city that had to be rebuilt stated that he wanted it to remain a predominantly white city? The hue and outcry would be beyond deafening. Yet, suddenly now this is ok?

I state this although I personally have nothing against the remarks themselves. I think I understand why he said it. However, in the analogy above, the mayor of the white city might also have had good intentions and reasoning behind his statements. That doesn't change the fact that none of that would matter, only the racism inherent in the statement would be focused on. So, my concern is much bigger than Nagin's comments themselves. Racism is racism, and racist remarks are racist remarks. You can't pick and choose....either we should decry such statements, or we should allow them. There shouldn't be different rules depending on which side of the color spectrum you fall on. All that does is perpetuate the phenomenon.

Unless of course you don't believe the comments are racist in the first place. As I explained above, Nagin could have used better words but it is pretty clear what he meant by his remarks to anyone that knows even the smallest thing about New Orleans or has visited at one point. The meaning behind them was not racist and all of this is much ado about nothing in my opinion.

The only way that can really be refuted is if you doubt the facts here:
1. New Orleans is a unique American city because of the predominantly black culture there that has made great contributions to our society. Without things like jazz, the food, etc it wouldn't be any different than any other city in the South.
2. If New Orleans is rebuilt as a bunch of high priced condos with touristy boutiques then it will never be the same again.

I really don't see those facts as debatable.

How about we give a slight hypothetical? Lets say Houston was the city that was wiped out by a hurricane since it is also in an area that is prone to hurricanes. Houston is approximately 50% white...and you are telling me that if the mayor of that city told his constituents "Don't worry, this city will be vanilla again" that THAT statement would not be deemed racist?

I am not decrying the words of the NO mayor, i am sure it was a slight slip of the tongue and he intended to make a more politically correct statement. I think his intentions were exactly as CJ described, it was just very wrong word usage.

I'm sure it would be, and the people that claimed that would probably be right because context in this case matters. Houston is a lot different than New Orleans. You can pick any city on the map Leder, there isn't any place like New Orleans and it is the way it is for very specific reasons.

Aren't ALL cities unique? What makes New Orleans so much more 'unique' than, say, Detroit.

I've never been to Detroit, but I'm informed it has a high population of 'chocolate people'. How has that helped the city become unique?

The notion that one ethnic group of people in the USA are solely responsible for the culture of a city is absurd. No matter how you cut it, Nagin's comment is clearly racist.


Then why are you debatting?

I don't see the validity of this second. No matter what you do New Orleans will never be the same, regardless. What once was, has been lost forever.

What replaces New Orleans might very well be equally special, but how does a high proportion of 'chocolate people' as opposed to 'Vanilla', 'banana' or 'strawberry' people guarantee anything at all?

You might just as equally argue that it was poverty that made New Orleans what it was before Katrina and what the city now needs in order to get its old character back is a nice fat load of poor people again.

No, all cities aren't unique in my opinion, some are very forgettable. I'm afraid that I really won't be able to do a good job of explaining the cultural importance of New Orleans to someone who has never experienced it. But needless to say, it has been a very important part of American culture, that is what makes it unique. If you want to read a little about it I'd suggest starting with this Wikipedia article.


No it isn't absurd Moif. African Americans in New Orleans invented Jazz and they are responsible for the unique culture of the city which has left its mark on our culture over the past century.


I'm debating because Nagin's comments are not racist, they are just ill-chosen words. And once again if you had knowledge of New Orleans you'd know that putting in a bunch of high priced condos for the rich and people with second homes would kill the culture of the city.

Cube Jockey.

It may have escaped your attention but New Orleans is famous through out the planet. Its fame is far greater than the necessity of having experienced it first hand. I don't need to read about New Orleans on Wikipedia because I learned about it in school!

Also, inventing a style of music many decades ago does not solidify the culture of a city for perpetuity.
Nor does a style of music belong to any one city or group of people. Musical styles are not simply born from nothing, they are the products of evolving fusions.

But this is neither here nor there because New Orleans was always about more than just Jazz or 'Chocolate people'. The city had a history that was bigger than either of these and its culture and what made it unique come from ALL that history, not just the 'chocolate' bits or the Jazz bits.

All cities are unique, because no two cities are the same. Whether or not you or I find them interesting is utterly besides the point for you or I do not decide what is unique and who is not.

Detroit may be a dump for all I know, but they can still make music there... right?

In the case of New Orleans, just as in much of human history, the interesting musical culture sprang more from poverty than any other single cause so if you are going to argue against expensive condo's then you must be arguing for a return to poverty...

...and if you're arguing for the fading musical culture of an American city then you have to take into account where that musical culture came from (not just the colour of skin of most of the people involved) AND whether or not the culture will return just because 'chocolate people' do.


Yeah?

Even if those condo's are occupied by 'chocolate people'?

Is Mayor Nagin helping to widen the divide between Whites and Blacks within New Orleans with his comments?

Individuals may hold New Orleans in some sort of esteem that borders on idolatry, wishing for either a return as an exact copy of it's previous self or some sort of new 'chocolate utopia', but Mayor Nagin shouldn't be speaking to individuals, he should be speaking to the citizens of his city; past, present and future.....black, white, hispanic, latino.....

New Orleans was a city as diverse and as vibrant as many others around the country. It's not so special that it should be held to demographic standards that would be decried elsewhere across the nation.

I think what Nagin said, and his later explanation were idiotic in the extreme. I don't know what was in his heart and head when he uttered those candy confection covered words, so I might be prone to give him the benefit of the doubt on the race issue..........until cynicism takes hold and I realize beyond a shadow of a doubt that had a white or conservative politician said similar, they would not now be held to the same low standards that some are holding Nagin to.

Because African-Americans aren't the only ones that live there? There may not have been as many, but there were poor white, hispanic, and asians who lost everything in New Orleans. This wasn't just some slip of the tongue. This was an obvious statement.

Now, is he a racist? I don't know, but he's certainly favoring one segment of the city over the rest of it.

As far as the explanation that blacks or black culture make New Orleans unique, thereby excusing his remarks, I don't buy it. New Orleans has been so diverse historically that, while black contributions were important to it's developing it's current personality, there are so many other things I think of when I think of New Orleans that to peg just one would be a diservice to the others.

Which is what Nagin did by making comments such as those.

Don't even mention the "Because God wills it" aspect of that comment. Anyone who claims to speak on behalf of God or knows what he is thinking should be avoided for the exact same reason you avoid a tree in a thunderstorm.

No it didn't escape my attention, but thanks. Reading about something in a book or hearing about it through word of mouth leads to a far different understanding of something than experiencing it first hand Moif. That can be applied to almost any subject you can think of.


Maybe in Europe, but not here. There are hundreds of cities in America that are virtually identical. There are precious few that are truely unique and those are the cities that are recognized throughout the world.


It'd be great if we could get past that soundbite and look at the substance of what Nagin was trying to say. I don't think anyone here will argue that he is the most articulate man and he certainly has a knack for putting his foot in his mouth. However, his comments are not racist because there is no racist intent behind them.

It is a fact that New Orleans was a predominately black city before Katrina. The 2000 Census tells us:


This lead to a lot of the great things that the city has been known for in my opinion and in the opinion of many of the country's residents. This topic is not to argue whether New Orleans was great or not.

It is also a fact that no one would even know who Nagin was if it wasn't for Katrina and particularly the comments he made about our fearless leader, George W. Bush. The comments were not the most flattering comments that could have been made. This has put him in the crosshairs of certain elements of our society and our media.

Finally, it is a fact that there are many in Louisiana that intend to take advantage of this situation for their own benefit. For example Representative Richard Baker of Louisiana who said:


This same man is now working on the federal plan to rebuild New Orleans which could vvery well end up being a developer boondoggle.

Nagin appears to be concerned about the future of New Orleans and he wants to ensure that it is returned as closely as possible to its former glory. There are currently plenty of people trying to exert their will that would prevent that from happening.

If you look at the facts, consider them in context and look at what Nagin is saying it is pretty clearly not racist and only proves he isn't very good with words and if the media wants to they can make you look bad with a soundbite pretty easily.

If you want to prove this is racist then you have a long way to go aside from a bunch of rhetoric about "what if so and so said vanilla cities."


Come on Titus, it is the South (note the capital S) and invoking God is pretty much unavoidable. If that is really the way you feel then I should expect you'll be dropping that Republican tag next to your name and replacing it with an Independent or Democrat tag, there isn't any political party that claims to speak for God more these days.

Do you really believe that, given the same circumstances, that someone that said something similar about a predominantly white city, just as justified, pointing out a desire to keep it a predominantly white city, wouldn't be called out for being racist? If not, my point stands, we shouldn't have double standards. If so, I encourage you to provide any evidence, as I find it highly questionable. There is a double standard here, and having a double standard isn't doing anything for racial prejudice...after all, having a double standard IS prejudicial by definition, isn't it?

Well it would depend on the circumstances (just as it does here) and I'd evaluate it. I wouldn't have a problem with it on principle. Seeing as this hypothetical white city with exactly comparable circumstances to new orleans doesn't exist... I'm afraid that is as far as your anecdote goes.

Seeing that I live only 60 miles from New Orleans and been there more times than I have posts here I believe I can speak from experience about New Orleans more than anyone here(3 of the 6 stations on my Radio are tuned to New Orleans stations, 2 of them talk radio).

I don't think it was racist.. it was pandering.

Onto Nagin himself.. Nagin is a panderer... And he's damn good at it. During the election for Mayor the opposing democrats in the primaries said he should be called Reagan, not Nagin. If Nagin had been in front of a crowd of business leaders and city planners, do you think he would have said the same thing?

Yet, Is Mayor Nagin helping to widen the divide between Whites and Blacks within New Orleans with his comments?

Well if this thread is any indication then the answer is yes.

I believe Mayor Nagin is expressing heartfelt opinions. A reference to a song that refers to New Orleans as a Chocolate City helps a little. But in reality his comments are clearly politically incorrect and he is speaking as a black leader and not of a leader of all of the people of New Orleans. The references to God and his imaginary conversation of MLK jr concern me. (not because God is referenced but because of the interpretation of God's intentions) (God wants New Orleans to be majority black? God is mad at America and punishing us with hurricanes for Iraq?)

I don't see how we can condemn Al Campanis, Jimmy the Greek, and Trent Lott and yet give Mayor Nagin a complete pass.

These comments were irresponsible.

Welcome, Veritas.

Nagin is saying blacks need to stop using racism as a facilitator for self-destructive behavior within the black community. He’s not encouraging people to “take sides” unless you think a black community addressing their own inter-racial problems is a form of taking sides. I think you’re misattributing his chocolate statement to the one you have quoted above.


Is it? I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard a conservative point out that black communities face serious problems and foster self-destructive attitudes. A black guy comes along, more or less says the same thing, but he doesn’t get it just right.

If Birmingham’s mayor had the integrity to tell the whites he represented the community had serious problems and they needed to fix it, i.e. the problem didn’t lie with the black protesters outside, I would’ve said it’s about damn time.

Yes, CJ, I believe you would evaluate it. However, my question referred more to the population in general, or perhaps more pertitently to the media and the black community. I for one don't think there's a snowball's chance such a comment would go unpunished, regardless of its validity, were the color spectrum reversed. There is clearly a double standard in this country, and that double standard is what I am pointing out. As I said initially, I don't really have a problem with Nagin's statements, at least on a racial basis. What I have a problem with is the double standard. The very groups that usually decry racism perpetuate it, and I think the hypocrisy involved should be pointed out.

I have never bought into the myth that Black people can't be racist. However, while what Mayor Nagin said wasn't particularly smart, politically correct or historically accurate, I still don't think it was racist. Certainly Nagin was overly laudatory of the contributions Blacks have made to the culture of New Orleans and exclusionary of non-Blacks, but where exactly is the deliberate attempt to insinuate other racial groups brought nothing to the table. Find that purposeful racism in Nagin's remarks because I do not see it.

Double standards, Hobbes? What double standard? Nagin's remarks have been roundly lambasted by both self-described conservatives and liberals alike in this thread. Hizzoner didn't waste much time issuing an apology.

"I used some analogies and probably didn't hit the mark on my message, but I never intended to offend anyone, and I think if they look at the entire context of what I said they'll understand the points I was trying to make."

That's an interesting point. It's strange it is Nagin's remarks about New Orleans remaining a chocolate city that spurred such outrage. Strange because some of his critical remarks directed at other Blacks have not aroused any similar expressions of outrage from anyone in this thread.

Nagin described an imaginary conversation with King, the late civil rights leader.

"I said, 'What is it going to take for us to move on and live your dream and make it a reality?' He said, 'I don't think that we need to pay attention any more as much about other folks and racists on the other side.' He said, 'The thing we need to focus on as a community - black folks I'm talking about - is ourselves.'"

Nagin said he also asked: "Why is black-on-black crime such an issue? Why do our young men hate each other so much that they look their brother in the face and they will take a gun and kill him in cold blood?"

The reply, Nagin said, was: "We as a people need to fix ourselves first."

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/nagin0117

So does Nagin get any credit for chastising Black people to stop engaging in self-destructive behavior and take on the responsibility of uplifting the race? Is he demonstrating "leadership" for taking his own people to task. Nah. It's far more satisfying to wag the finger and announce triumphantly, "See, Black leaders can be just as bigoted as any White racist."

Which kind of falls under the category of Tell Me Something I Didn't Already Know.

This is a one or two day story--maximum, and then people will move on to other topics. But this is the first time in weeks anyone has paid much attention to New Orleans and what stirs people to fury? Not the ongoing struggle of the Gulf Coast to pick up, assess the damage and start the recovery efforts in earnest, but Mayor Nagin's unfortunate slip of the lip. Six months from now which story will matter more?

The thing is it's easy to dump on Nagin for saying something really dumb. It's a lot harder to hold the local, state and federal officials accountable for rebuilding New Orleans. Whether this new New Orleans is chocolate, vanilla or just a delicious gumbo of various races, cultures and classes, who cares as long as it happens?

Double standards? More like skewed priorities.

Is Mayor Nagin helping to widen the divide between Whites and Blacks within New Orleans with his comments?

Yes. I don’t know whether Nagin’s words were political pandering or an attempt at heartfelt (but thoughtless) inspiration for the black community. However, remarks like these are offensive regardless of his intentionality because they highlight racial double standards, and attempt to divide black people from those of other races. Consider other comments made in the speech (in which he quotes what he thinks Dr. King would say today):



Is it appropriate for the mayor of a city—elected to look after the interests of everyone who lives there, no matter what ethnicity—to say that he and his own racial group should only focus on themselves while disregarding the “other side?” Even apart from his political position, talking about race in terms of “sides” and encouraging one racial group to ignore “the other” and focus exclusively internally is disturbingly divisive. Saying that it is his belief, as well as God’s mandate, that New Orleans should be mostly of a certain race is racist, whether or not it was intended as hateful. Nagin’s message may been trying to embolden the black community, but his racial rhetoric reinforces a dichotomous mentality.



Although Nagin deserves credit for an attempt to “uplift” black Americans, I think his approach is flawed. Even saying that intra-racial violence is "self"-destructive and is somehow worse than violence among races encourages ethnic divisions between people. Encouraging one racial group to care only about itself is a short-sighted solution to any problems the black community faces. We should be fighting against poverty, not black poverty; crime, not black crime…as members of a community, as Americans, as human beings, but not within racial boundaries. We need inclusiveness and unity, not categorization and having our problems—and ourselves—defined by our race.

Even though I’m probably overinterpreting well-intentioned but careless sentiments, I still think that being offended is an appropriate reaction to inappropriate comments.

I must disagree. I have visited almost every major city in the country, and all of them are unique. Yes, they also share a lot of commonalities, but they are different.

Yeah but so what?

Visiting a city doesn't grant a superior insight. I've visited Verona, Pisa and Milano but that doesn't mean I have any greater understanding of them than the knowledge I've gained from history books.

New Orleans great past is in the past and visiting the city in 2004 doesn't lend much insight into that glorious past. Only the people who lived there knew it that well. For the rest of us, visiting the place or reading about it is much of a muchness.


I don't believe this for a moment... and I saw Poland in its communist hey day. Even there the cities were all unique.

They might not have been pretty or laid claim to having given birth to any popular musical genre, but they were still unique. They still had value to the people who lived there.


Yes, and it is also a fact that New Orleans was a city burdened by poverty and my point is that it was the history of this poverty that gave New Orleans its unique character, not the skin tone of the people who lived there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


For what my opinion is worth nighttimer, this idea that Nagin is responsible for 'his people' (meaning black people) is the reason why I believe what Nagin is saying is acting like a racist.

The man is the Mayor of an entire city. 'His people' are the citizens of that city and the citizens of that country.

The notion that 'his people' are the black people of America and not all American's is elitist and racist. Pure and simple.

Welcome, Veritas.

Nagin is saying blacks need to stop using racism as a facilitator for self-destructive behavior within the black community. He’s not encouraging people to “take sides” unless you think a black community addressing their own inter-racial problems is a form of taking sides. I think you’re misattributing his chocolate statement to the one you have quoted above.


Is it? I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard a conservative point out that black communities face serious problems and foster self-destructive attitudes. A black guy comes along, more or less says the same thing, but he doesn’t get it just right.

If Birmingham’s mayor had the integrity to tell the whites he represented the community had serious problems and they needed to fix it, i.e. the problem didn’t lie with the black protesters, I would’ve said it’s about time.

Am I really misunderstanding something fundamental here?

How can the various ethnic people of America, or any where else for that matter, ever hope to move out of the segregation of their past, of poverty and of the majority, if they keep refering to themselves as 'a people'.

Surely the way forward must be through equality or nothing at all.

Any argument that seeks to dillute that, for what ever reason, is not going to work. You can't have equality whilst having self imposed segregation, even if it is only a segregation of the mind, of self perception.

As long as people continue to isolate themselves then they can hardly complain when ever other people isolate them.

Let me clarify my position. I don't have a problem with Nagin's statements, and I do not think they were racist. However, does anyone disagree that if a white person were to make similar remarks, they would be far more publicly chastised? I don't think there's any doubt they would be. I'm not saying I think Nagin should be more chastised....I'm saying that similar statements should be viewed in the same light his have been. Basically, I think the race card gets played too often, and doing so just harms race relations.




Again, to be clear, I have no outrage at Nagin's remarks. I don't think he's racist: I don''t even think his statements were particularly racist. I suspect they were a little bit heartfelt (which is a good thing) and a little bit political pandering (which is to be expected, he is a politician). Nothing to be outraged about there.




Absolutely he does. It's a shame comments such as these don't get more press, as they're probably far more important.



Actually, what I'm aiming for is more: "Let's not jump to the race card whenever anyone utters potentially inflammatory remarks that can be explained by other means".



Actually, all of us, who will be paying for it, should care, but that's another topic.

I really don't see why that matters so much. I pointed out in my initial post that it is an obvious fact that N.O. was predominantly black. At this point in the city's history, that is true. But New Orleans is almost 300 years old. It's history includes significant French and Spanish influeneces. The demographics have varied over the centuries and to claim that there is any mandate, temporal or otherwise, to make the city "chocolate" or any other "flavor" is ignorant of the city's rich history.



It wouldn't be New Orleans if the French hadn't settled there. It wouldn't be New Orleans if the Spanish hadn't rebuilt so much of it. Just as much as it wouldn't be New Orleans without the distinct cultures of African-Americans of Southern and Carribean descent.




I couldn't agree more. While the comments were rather racially loaded, I don't think you could call him a full blown racist. I do think he was exploiting the racial tension in New Orleans to score points within the community, and no one seems to mind his methods.



I think this thread, while very constructive is focusing a tad bit to much on whether or not Nagin is a racist. While you won't find him singing "Kill the White people", as you pointed out NT, his remarks were pretty exclusionary and
loaded with bias for one group.

I disagree. This is the problem France is having... they try to ignore race and culture, by pretending everyone is French, and this allows racism to exist below the radar.

It is appropriate to track race. And it is even more appropriate to identify oneself and celebrate one's cultural background. True diversity is not when everyone is the same, or when everyone is only an individual, but when all cultures are appreciated for their uniqueness. We enjoy going to Irish Pubs, Italian Restaurants, and Latin Clubs. We enjoy learning about other culture's traditions, and joining in celebrtations of our own. Do we want those distinctions to be eliminated? You can't really, people will always group themselves by common traditions. True diversity recognizes this and permits it, without holding one tradition over another.

Addressed to Nagin's statement, my initial reaction, especially his reference to God's intentions, was of incredulity. But after reading some of the thoughts on this thread, I've been considering that, in a very ineloquent manner, Nagin has a point. Separate from the Black-White divide. Would we be as upset if, say, the mayor of a Florida town said he would see that his town was rebuilt maintaining it's Cuban heritage, or a northern town would not abandon it's Slavic heritage, or say after an earthquake, that Chinatown in SF would retain it's Asian character?

It's a delicate issue, and Nagin's handling of it was in the ham-handed tradition of the President he criticizes. But his thought has some subtle merit.

NO. It is absolutely not appropriate to track race. Doing so does nothing but further racism. It is in fact racist simply to gather such statistics. Much of the racial division in this country would go away if we stopped tracking race and had to rely on other demographic/social/economic statitstics...which are usually much more appropriate anyway. Consider if we didn't have the statistics for the previous racial makeup of New Orleans. Then Nagin could only say that he wanted those people who used to inhabit New Orleans to do so again. Exactly the same sentiment, but minus all the racial overtones. Wouldn't that be better? But this is a topic for another thread.



This I agree with. When I read Moif's statements, I didn't take them to mean anything different. We should all be equally allowed to be unique, I guess.

I heard Nagins speech in it's entirety. Didn't spend much time on that comment when I was hearing it- you see, he spent more time on asking blacks to cease thier black on black crime and that kind of thing. -

He was trying to "pump up the crowd and lift spirits" from my point of view. Folks in NO, most of them black and poor, have not been having a great time lately- and he wanted to give them a good ol' fashioned "come to Jesus" speech like he heard when he was a kid.

Lot's of folks down there believe Katrina has been used by folks like GW to get with some good ol' southern ethnic cleansing.

Not down there, don't know if it is true or just the fact that poor poeple have a hard time getting up from the hole they are already in, much less one that was dug deeper for them by a hurricane and an ineffective FEMA.

I took the speech in it's whole for it's content as he was trying to say.

It is funny though how much is forgiven by GWs white conservative audience vs a couple words by Nagin.

Why bring GW into this, aside from a pathological obsession?

Nagin is a putz, and a soft racist and/or a panderer. Neither is defensible.

"Chocolate" city? I thought it was an American city?!? Nashville is not a "Vanilla" city, even thought the music and culture that sprang from their is predominately white. It's a part of American culture. So is New Orleans. Suddenly, blacks are supposed to be the majority of people moving back, even though nobody cared about color when they donated time, money, and blood to help those that were traumatized by the disaster that struck?

We were supposed to ignore color when it came time to give, but focus on it now that it is time to re-build? Sounds like hipocracy to me.

Nobody is trying to (or ever could) take away from the historical signifigance of New Orleans. Unless every single person that lived there pre-hurricane is going to move back, things are going to be different.

If a certain proportion of people living there in the future are supposed to be "chocolate", then count me out of any funding or effort to re-build. I didn't think about all those "chocolate" people dying in the floods and wind and rain. I thought about all of those people dying. Why make it a divisive issue?


This is exactly what is wrong with the world today. We have a tendency to take an issue that unites us, and make it into something that divides us. The entire country rallied around New Orleans, and things like this make us second guess. That is just plain sad...

If it is Demographics he's using them under the delusion that a Chocolate City can save his political career.

So does this mantra apply to people like Newt Gingrich???

What about to people like me?? Someone that became a self-made white/conservative success can't ever be considered more than someone from...
????

The reality is that if someone, even if from Small-Town Louisiana (me) who has an understanding of being raised in a very diverse environment... happens to be white and republican, I have a strong feeling that it's going to be interpreted in a far different manner than had that man been black with a similar background. Statements like that would never be acceptable coming from a white man, and sure as heck no one would defend them.

I have no problem w/ what Mr. Nagin said, as I stated eariler... but for anyone to really believe that the demographics of the city will return to their previous roots is marginally near-sighted. It's nearly impossible for the poorest portion of the city to make it from their transplanted communities across the nation back to New Orleans. It's just unrealistic....

I think everyone really ought to take another read of CruisingRam's post. Have any of you arguing this is racism actually read the speech that Nagin gave in full or are you just reacting to the soundbite out of context?

Oh, someone used the words "chocolate city" to describe New orleans, thats clearly racist and I'm outraged...

Or perhaps you should re-read nighttimer's post where he lets us know about a song called "Chocolate City" by Parliament (lyrics). The lyrics to that song wouldn't have been considered racist in 1975 when it was released but all of a sudden they are today? Give me a break.

So Ray Nagin includes issues such as the plick of black on black violence and the need for community strength, and it's ok that he motivated the crowd using borderline racist/ racially loaded comments?

I don't care if he was calling for world peace. The method he used to deliver such comments is completely wrong.

Oh, and as far as the excuse of using lyrics from a 70's funk band, let's take a look at the lyrics themselves.



Yeah, the song explains everything. To be honest, the song might have been considered by some to be racist, if they didn't understand (or chose not to) the concept of black empowerment expressed in the music of the time.

There's another lyric in the song that says, "Who needs a bullet when you've got the ballot." I didn't hear Ray Nagin sing that. There's positive and empowering motivation, and then there's exploiting racial tension.

I'd have to agree to this sarcasm... the poor dude has entirely too much to worry about. Who knows what the future holds for the gentleman, and he's got far more to worry about than the city staying predominantly black or any incindental comment he made in reference to this notion.

However, I would like to hear more about how people would feel if Mr. Bush/Mr. Cheney/_____(insert other prominent white figure) were to make comment on national television about whatever city being a "vanilla city". I personally believe that there's a sincere double standard when it comes to addressing race, and I wish people would just lighten up...

I agree with you on this point. It is definitely unrealistic.

Especially since most of those relocated refugees were given one-way tickets out of New Orleans and dispersed everywhere between Massachusetts and Utah.

Ummm...gentrification. You can almost smell it.

Oh, and Titus? Anyone who would seriously call "Chocolate City" and a good-time party animal like George Clinton "racist" either has no understanding what racism is or has absolutely no sense of humor. Maybe both.

Whatever. Somebody needs a token to ride on the "Get A Life" bus.

Lol...well, I'd be the last person to call the Grand Master of Interplanetary Funk a racist. But that just makes what Nagin did worse. Empowering a community that still, in many areas, is discriminated against is a great thing. Doing so by, again, exploiting racial tension and then when you get called on it blame it on a song by the great George Clinton, is screwed up. Period.

As far as busses go, I'm always chasing that one. Nothin but the dog in me, I guess!

By the way, NT, here's to you for your birthday. May you live to see many more, my friend and adversary!

Is Mayor Nagin helping to widen the divide between Whites and Blacks within New Orleans with his comments?

Uh, yes. But he's fighting for his political life. May as well play to the biggest group of registered voters in town. Not too different from the "southern strategy" when you think about it. As someone who has frequently visited NO, I wouldn't argue that it was a 'chocolate city' at all, at least in the P-Funk context. (Aretha Franklin, the first lady!)

That said, when he and Jesse Jackson were bussing black folks back to NO, I really thought that it was more of an anti-latino thing than a pro-black thing. Latinos are going to move there to take whatever jobs exist, and that will change the character of the city forever. Nagin and Jesse were at least being realistic when they went to Motel 6 in Baton Rouge and said "hey, I know that you can sit on your butt and eat pizza here, but come back home and make us look good." Honestly, I'm not sure whether combating this racially is "racist" or "dumb" or "politics" or what. But it sure ain't PC, and if the tables were turned, whitey would be pilloried in the public square, that's for sure.

More importantly in terms of the practicality of a Chocolate City, Reverend Ike as minister of the treasure would better understand defacit spending than today's republicans, and that wouldn't be all bad.

Gainin' on ya!