Black on brown racism

For reasons different perhaps than some city activists, I am not necessarily of the mind that the DC Parks and Recreation Department is best served by Mayor Fenty's pick of Ximena Hartsock. See "Jonetta Rose Barras: Dividing lines in D.C." from the Examiner and these old pieces from the Washington City Paper, "New Parks Director: Ximena Hartsock" and the Post, "For Parks Nominee, Focus Is On Fitness: Improving Kids' Health Is Priority for Official."

But I would argue that my opinion has to do with how the department is managed, the level of comprehensive planning within the agency, etc., rather than whether or not Ms. Hartsock is a non-native born Latino/Hispanic.

But the Post, see the editorial "A D.C. Council Embarrassment," is surprised that a lot of the anti-Hartsock sentiment focuses on the fact that she is Latina/Hispanic, and not African-American.

I'm shocked that they are shocked.

I will never forget the quote from then Councilmember H.R. Crawford (these days he still gets US Housing and Urban Development grants and serves on the board of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, through this year he is Chair) in response to the disturbances/ riots in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood of DC back in 1991. So I went and looked it up in the historical Washington Post database at the Library of Congress:

From "The Painful Lessons of Mount Pleasant: Alienation Felt by Hispanics Caught Mayor and City Off Guard," by Christine Spolar, Washington Post, May 12, 1991, A1:

But the sudden spotlight on the Hispanic community has irritated some black leaders, opening a window on the politics of the 1990s in this majority-black city. Poor blacks and poor Hispanics could find themselves in competition for city help as the District's fiscal crisis deepens. ... The clearest challenge to the fleding efforts by Hispanics came from council member H.R. Crawford (D-Ward 7).

"If they don't appreciate our country, get out," he said Thursday. he also said he did not want violence to be rewarded with city programs, and added that the city needed to be concerned with "legitimate members of the community."

At the time, I shook my head, because that sounded like an almost verbatim quote from White racists opposed to equal rights for African-Americans, during the time of the Civil Rights Movement. It made me reflect on how far the nation had come, and how at the same time, as a people we had not moved forward far at all. .

Things haven't changed in DC all that much in 18 years if you ask me. Also see the Marc Fisher Post column, "The Tragedy of H.R. Crawford," and the Post investigation, "Building on Broken Promises: D.C. Developer's Projects Marred by Unchecked Spending and Dubious Deals." From the column:

When the history of home rule in Washington is written, the puzzle of Marion Barry will loom large: How could someone so talented have been so self-destructive, historians will ask. How could a great leader who was so committed to grasping power for the downtrodden have come into office and then abused the public trust by turning the District government into a hiring hall for cronies and con artists?

But to understand the mysteries of the mayor-for-life, it's necessary to look beyond Barry's oversized personality, to examine a slew of D.C. characters who enabled Barry and who came to run Washington--to build it into a symbol of black pride and power, even as they disgraced themselves by feeding off the public till. ...

As today's story illustrates, Crawford's business operations are a jumble of contradictions. He sets out to build affordable housing for Washingtonians who've never owned anything in their lives, yet his grand plans often include pushing families out of homes they've had for decades. He promises poor people he will make homeowners of them, yet far too many of the units he's built end up in the hands of people who have political, personal or financial connections to him. ...

Just as Barry's defenders have always pointed to the region's thriving black middle class--many of whose members found upward mobility in government work--as evidence that there was method to his wily ways, Crawford has always dismissed accusations that his real estate empire took advantage of the poor.

Crawford made the same arguments that most developers make about gentrification, that by deepening the city's tax base, they were actually contributing to the District's ability to care for its most needy residents. And that is certainly accurate. But Crawford also presented himself as something different, as a developer who was going to turn the city's low-income residents into homeowners, into genuine members of the middle class.

And that, as Sunday's story details, has not quite worked out as well as Crawford would have us believe.