IT IS EASY TO FORGET ABOUT THE PROBLEMS of the wider world in a place like Benicia. Our streets are safe to walk at any hour, and while Benicia has its share of people who have been affected by the economic crisis of the last five years, I think it is fair to describe our little town as a reasonably prosperous place.
I have described in previous columns the troubles that beset other places in the Bay Area, particularly Richmond, the city I lived in until graduating from middle school. It is too easy to dismiss the problems of Richmond and similar places as happening to a bunch of remote and abstract “thems” with no real solution — to quote a line spoken by Anthony Hopkins’ heartless character in the 1992 film “Howards End”: “Do not concern yourself with the poor. The poor are poor. One feels sorry for them but … there it is.”
One can easily look upon the situation in our inner cities and feel something close to despair. There is chronic unemployment, rampant addiction, broken families and frightening violence. Despair is easy, and even understandable, but ultimately cowardly and unworthy of our heritage. Hope is hard and can seem almost naïve, but hope — true, vibrant hope — is the status quo’s most bitter foe, and is the absolute first requirement for any positive change.
It seems to me that, in the decades since the Kennedy era, we Americans have forgotten how to dream.
For the purposes of the following discussion I’m going to leave aside considerations of cost, and focus entirely on the problem itself: What would it actually take to comprehensively address the problems of Richmond? Before getting into specifics, I would like to mention some general characteristics that are essential for any solution to succeed:
First, any solution has to be holistic — address every problem at once — and should account for the inter-relatedness of the problems. Merely stepping up police presence to quell crime does nothing about the economic and social despair that motivates so many young men to commit crimes. Providing employment opportunities is of no use without job training programs to qualify young men and women to fill them; treating addiction is bound to fail if addicts leave treatment centers and arrive back in neighborhoods where drugs are plentiful and terribly tempting in an environment devoid of opportunities to be a productive and useful member of society.
Second, any solution has to be sustained. Centuries of persecution followed by decades of malign neglect cannot be undone with a few months or years of effort.
Third, any solution must be managed and implemented, to the extent possible, by the residents of Richmond themselves. Too much of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty was managed from the top down, and ultimately was unable to adapt and adjust to realities on the ground. To someone who didn’t live in Chicago’s dilapidated slums, tearing them down and building high-rise housing projects probably seemed like a good way to raise the quality of housing at a stroke; what the designers of the notorious Cabrini Green housing projects neglected to account for was the many small storefronts and other retail space that provided an opportunity for residents to start businesses and perhaps even employ their neighbors in the slums those projects replaced. No one in Washington thought to go to a local pastor and make use of the wisdom and perspectives gained by a lifetime of service to the very people the Washingtonians were tasked with helping.
Finally, any solution absolutely depends on the immediate and sustained reduction of violent crime — particularly aggravated assault and murder. Violence is the biggest killer of hope in Richmond, in my opinion worse than drug use or poverty. The project of transcending your circumstances is made immeasurably more difficult if you spend significant energy trying not to become a victim of murder or mayhem.
I can think of an example from my time in Richmond to illustrate this principle. My elementary school had two classrooms of sixth graders, and I realize thinking back that if someone had removed perhaps two or three particular children from those classes, everyone else in the sixth grade would have had a transformed educational experience.
One of those children was a kid in my own sixth grade class. I’ll call him Rodney. He was a violent, dangerous kid — I remember seeing a girl in the grade below ours who had been taken to the school nurse after Rodney beat her to a lumpy, bloody pulp.
At the time, I coped as best I could with the danger posed by Rodney — I made sure I knew where he was and what he was doing when I was near him, which, since we had the same teacher, was basically every moment at school in the sixth grade. That diverted lots of energy that might have been better spent paying attention and learning in class.
The problems of being menaced by violence in my sixth-grade classroom are writ large in the streets of Richmond today, and the violence is an order of magnitude more severe, as is the psychological devastation wrought in the minds of the victims. There are perhaps thousands of people, including children, who suffer from untreated post-traumatic stress disorder from witnessing their (often innocent of any crime) friends and family members being murdered on Richmond’s streets.
I’ll have more specific suggestions in next week’s column, but let me counter some of the darkness above by mentioning someone I’ve mentioned before in this column, a woman whose actual first name is, appropriately enough, “Hope.” She had lost her only two grandchildren to murder in East Oakland, and I held her hand as she wept for her lost children, but she took up the cross of her grief and reached out to the kids in the neighborhood, doing the best she could to prevent another mother’s or grandmother’s heart from breaking as hers had. She prayed, worked, and filled her days with service. She and servants like her deserve our help.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
Well stated as always, Matt, having been reduced to economic crisis three times in 30 years in the corporate world due to layoffs, not of my making, I was fortunate in having the training, education, and mentors to climb out of each abyss…millions are not so fortunate. Parts of my own evolution I try to include in my column so that others might benefit…pb
Another viewpoint about the present state of the city of Richmond for the community to consider…
From the above article:
“One can easily look upon the situation in our inner cities and feel something close to despair.”
From the article below:
“By any measure, our city is rising from a history of scarcity and despair, and gaining national attention as a community courageous enough to define its own destiny.”
http://quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/index.php?itemid=12038
Source: Beyond Chron: The Voice of the Rest.
I would suggest that anyone who wants to help Richmond can move there and work in the community for whatever they perceive as positive change. It is a bit disingenous to write a column like the above, exhorting people to take some kind of action, while living in “a reasonably prosperous place” like Benicia.It is not really all that different than the people he criticizes, who tried to “fix” situations from Washington or other places afar.
Matt, I am sure you could rent an apartment there, perhaps even buy a house. What is stopping you, other than the cocoon of safety you enjoy in Benicia? Without that kind of commitment from you, your colum falls flat as another guilt-ridden liberal rant — the work of a pompous, holier-than-thou “ineffectual”.
How do you know he does not live in Richmond?
Perhaps because he read the article.
I read the article, Richard. Why don’t you point me to where it states he lives in Benicia.
You might want to review the question that you asked, as that was the question addressed.
Now you are bringing up a new question. It might be best to address them one at a time, Richard.
He uses thwe term “our little town” I think that answers the question
To call someone who is making an observation a “guilt-ridden” liberal is exactly the kind of attitude this column is addressing. It is the philosophy that said, and still says, about similar observations of national problems, “If you don’t like it move to Russia,” or, “Vote with your feet.” (President Ronnie). The observations made by Mr. Talbot are dead on and need to be considered by everyone, and “everyone” cannot move to Richmond, or places like it, to have an opinion, raise awareness, make suggestions or call for state and national policies to address these problems. Women got the right to vote, in large part, because men who were comfortable and could vote wrote, observed and voted to change the laws. Civil Rights are being gained in the US because “comfortable, guilt-ridden liberals” who CAN vote are speaking out and pressuring to change attitudes and laws. Just because ideas are uncomfortable and call upon us to do something besides criticize or look down upon those who aren’t “comfortable,” doesn’t mean they should be blown off with clichés and generalizations about the person stating them.
Well stated, I’ll second that!–pb
jfurlong stated:Just because ideas are uncomfortable and call upon us to do something besides criticize or look down upon those who aren’t “comfortable,” doesn’t mean they should be blown off with clichés and generalizations about the person stating them.
Does that apply also to those who denigrate Tea Party members on a too regular as well as predictable basis?
No, only those who denigrate tea party members on a too regular but not predictable basis.
Of course, if the article or statements in question are the same situation as in this article. I am wondering why the article’s actual ideas were not addressed, rather than the convenient “they do it, so why can’t I?” argument being put forth. What does denigrating TP members have to do with what Mr. Talbot is trying to illustrate? Nothing, but it is a good way to deflect the discussion, isn’t it?
No, just trying to establish the ground rules to see if they apply equally. But we already know the answer to that question, don’t we?
I repeat, ground rules for what? There was NO mention of any political party in this piece; no reference to any particular philosophy for solving these problems, so what in tarnation does “ground rules” have to do with anything? NO one has mentioned the tea party, the left, etc. etc. What WAS mentioned were problems that are epidemic to all our big cities, even a criticism of the War on Poverty (LBJ, Democrats, etc.) which was pertinent. So, why the “ground rules” for something that is just a list of opinions based on a lot of research and history? I repeat, bringing up potential ideological squabbles is a very, very convenient way to deflect the ISSUE, which is the decay of our cities and what we, as a civilized society, should try to discover as solutions to those problems. I am sure there will be good ideas from a wide range of people, so pigeon-holing POSSIBLE differences is a waste of time in this instance. Stick to the topic.
I think the article is well written and points well made. Our urban troubles can only be solved through personal responsibility of its citizens. Government does have a roll in bringing needed police services, education, and a pro-economic growth environment. But it is the citizens that must take responsibility for action. Be involved with schools. Raise children well. Be proactive in finding employment and/ or job training.
Good article.
Our urban troubles can only be solved through personal responsibility of its citizens.
While people assuming responsibility for themselves is an essential ingredient to any solution, another essential ingredient is the support of the rest of society. We’re all in this together, Matter.
To be clearer: supporting others is our responsibility.
Matt stated: To be clearer: supporting others is our responsibility.
That reads as a definitive statement, one without limitations or clarifications, and one based on humanitarian principles, not legal principles.
‘support’ for others is a noble effort, but enabling others is a line that can be too quickly crossed.
Matt, where is the line drawn for you between support and enabling?
There’ll be much more in part II, Dennis, but for now I would say that the people of Richmond know what they need in terms of support. That’s why I mentioned pastors in the column – and not just pastors, but people like Hope and others who do the unsung work of saving kids in a very tough environment. They have their fingers on the pulse of the community, and know where support would be most effective.
He’s just picking a fight, clumsily. He’s not interested in what you have to say, Matt.
Thanks Matt. I will look forward to part II.
BTW, my wife and I attended church in Richmond for several years (until we moved away) primarily because we saw in that small neighborhood church more real help being offered to many people struggling with various forms of personal issues. That church gave a lot of strength to many who needed it most.
It is that kind of help that serves to build a community.
I would hope that the majority of our problem solving in this nation begins with “humanitarian” principles, rather than “legal” ones. If we are claiming (a questionable claim at that, most of the time) to be a “Christian nation,” shouldn’t we always start with the human consequences of our policies?
I agree. I hope my comments were not interpreted as “they are on their own.” Society and community need to be involved. But support from society without acceptance of self responsibility is wasteful and harmful. It leads to dependence instead of independence. We all should be involved and helping our fellow man. But our fellow man should also work to take responsibility for their own actions.
That sums up the issue very well Matter. I worked in downtown Richmond in the late 50’s. Very vibrant town with problems. It has since then been a down hill slide and not to the advantage of the residents. Just where did the residents go wrong I cannot answer that question. Help is needed and they have gotten it over the years. So what happens the slide continues. It is about time the residents now show responsibility for what has happened as they are the only ones that can fix it. Hope and charity will not help fix an existing problem just cover it up for a while. The residents must take control of the problem and fix it. It is not beyond hope for these very fine folks. But they must step in start to sahow all residents that wenough is enough. They will need help and will get it but results must be achieved to show ALL residents that no more violence will be tolerated. This diown hill slide started right aftwer WWII and has not stopped. It will not be an easy fuix. But it can be done and all the comments and articles are not the answer. It is the residents that must do this very difficult fix.
Thanks Matt. I will look forward to Part II.
BTW, My wife and I attended a church in Richmond for several years (prior to our moving) primarily because we saw at that church the kind of support for those in need that serves to help build communities.
Sorry about that. Word Press seems to be playing tricks. The first post did not appear and now it is there.