Dear Editor,

I am writing this in response to the article in the last issue entitled “Opinion: Enough Negativity!”

I agree that McCauley is a hotbed of politics on social justice issues and that the street I live on has improved in the last few years (but not everyone is so fortunate). Finally, I agree that crime is a city wide issue. However, the housing branch has identified “distressed communities” and I disagree with the proposition that because other communities suffer from high crime, that that is less of a problem for us or for them. (I witnessed a man being taken to task at the last Church Street meeting for daring to comment about safety issues on 96 Street!)

I disagree that the League has been opposed to the museum, arena, and the EPCOR Tower projects. If there have been criticisms of particular aspects of those designs it is in an attempt to reap the most net positive benefits of those projects specifically for McCauley.

The concept of “structural inequality” (often based on race, ethnicity, gender, and/or economic status) is useful to understanding “deliberate harm” or “incompetence.” To grossly over simplify, structural inequality is inequality that is built right into the core of society – into laws, actions, policies, and the power structure. This inequality cannot exist without the beliefs and thoughts that support and continue to reproduce that inequality and to defend it. Some academics maintain that perpetuating inequality is conscious and intentional; others say that it is not. So powerful are the thoughts and the messages that some people, agencies, and government who claim to be helping the poor, for example, support policies that benefit other dominant classes at their expense. Thinking that people or communities who reject more concentrated poverty are THE NIMBYS in the city is an example of that socialization.

The concept of “critical thinking” is important here. This is not negative thinking but about the ability to mentally weigh pieces of information to see if they make logical sense. Propaganda, misinformation, and conflicting messages are everywhere. Part of critical thinking includes the power to face unpleasant facts rather than resorting to the defense mechanism of denial (a situation where certain facts are rejected despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

I agree that we live in a democracy, but I disagree with the passive depiction of how to participate in that democracy. Opposition parties and concerned citizens, often labelled “troublesome,” serve key functions and roles. Democracy is about more than “going along to get along” and about more than agreeing with “the spin.” Open free speech and freedom of expression and its defense are absolutely required.

When I first moved to McCauley I encountered an informal and entrenched code of conduct that apparently I inherited when I got my mortgage. Some of the principles seem to be: a) you must be positive; b) you must conform to a specific version of political correctness; c) you must work together with City committees. In talking about “challenges” d) you can never really critique what has gone on in the past; e) you can barely talk about what is wrong in the present; and, f) suggestions about how to do things differently are quickly rejected. Coming from a university environment, I find this quite odd and troubling. I believe we have a mild version of what Orwell captured in his book 1984. This, in the language of “Newspeak” where negative terms like “bad” are no longer allowed, is “ungood.”

I agree that we live in a democracy, but I disagree with the passive depiction of how to participate in that democracy. Opposition parties and concerned citizens, often labelled “troublesome,” serve key functions and roles. Democracy is about more than “going along to get along” and about more than agreeing with “the spin.” Open free speech and freedom of expression and its defense are absolutely required.

After attending many pointless and unproductive meetings, and as the former President who wrote thoughtful positive letters to the folks in power, based on reason, I conclude that “catching flies with honey” doesn’t really work that well. Rather, most of the time, it seems like the “squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

Sincerely,
Wendy Aasen