Kai Wright

(0 comments, 249 posts)

This user hasn't shared any profile information

Home page: http://www.racewire.org/

Posts by Kai Wright

Thank You Don Cornelius, for Your Love, Peace and Blackness

0

It’s hard to remember things that have always been there, hard to form a tangible idea of how they’ve shaped you. If you were alive and black anytime between 1970 and 1993, that’s likely how you feel about Don Cornelius. In those years, this remarkable man took to the airwaves every Saturday morning and created blackness. He stood up before the world–just two years after King’s assassination, five years after the Moynihan Report detailed supposed black depravity–and he unapologetically celebrated the joy, creativity and love of black culture. He financed the show himself. He insisted on employing black artists both on and off camera. And he built one of the most iconic brands in American history in the process.

Today, the Los Angeles County Coroner confirmed that Cornelius died from a self-inflicted gun shot to the head. He was 75. I’ve no notion of the torment that led him to the awful moment in which he died. But I have every idea of the joy and happiness and pride he facilitated weekly in black homes over 23 years. That’s Cornelius’s legacy–love, of self and others. We thank him. And in his truly immortal words, we wish his spirit love, peace and soul.

Got a favorite Soul Train clip? Share it on the Colorlines.com Facebook page.


We’re ending the day as often as possible by celebrating love. We welcome your ideas for posts. Send suggestions to submissions@colorlines.com, and be sure to put Celebrate Love in the subject line. You can send links to videos, graphics, photos, quotes, whatever. Or just chime in to the comments below and we’ll find you. Be sure to let us know you’ve got the rights to share any media you send.

To see other Love posts visit our Celebrate Love page.

Obama’s Big Shift: Let’s Truly Investigate the Banking Sector’s Crimes

0
Obama's Big Shift: Let's Truly Investigate the Banking Sector's Crimes

President Obama said many things at last night’s State of the Union, but the speech really boils down to two very big statements–one about values, the other about policy.

The values statement is rightly getting lots of play this morning: Obama’s core message between now and November will focus on economic inequality, specifically, and equal opportunity broadly. Obama grabbed hold of the debate over taxes and reframed it as a debate over opportunity and fairness. That’ll be a welcome change for the broad swath of communities from which Democrats are seeking support, not just for Obama, but for congressional races as well.

The policy statement last night is an equally huge deal. Obama announced a new task force to investigate financial industry crimes surrounding the mortgage crisis; the unit is to be led by the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. That appointment alone is a big deal: Financial reform advocates love Schneiderman because he’s been one of few public officials to insist that someone still must be held accountable for the multiple forms of fraud that large financial players committed during the housing boom. Moreover, he’s insisted that the people who lost their homes and their hard-earned wealth in the process deserve restitution. That’s a conversation the White House has avoided like the plague since the day it took office. Last night’s announcement marks a dramatic shift.

The question remains whether Schneiderman’s unit will be window dressing for a get-out-of-jail-free settlement with banks that are currently facing heat from state attorneys general over fraudulent foreclosures.

Here’s the reaction from the New Bottom Line, a relatively new coalition of homeowner advocates and community groups that had been making this very demand loudly for years:

President Obama has heard the calls of the 99% and announced a full, federal investigation into the fraudulent activities of big banks…. We will continue to make sure that this investigation uncovers the truth about the activities of the big banks. And in order to provide real and meaningful relief to millions of homeowners, the end result must be at least $300 billion in principal reduction and restitution for those who have lost their homes, especially targeted at the most hard hit communities. This will reset the housing market and the economy.

I’ll have more on the unit and what it means later this week.

Why the GOP’s Spectacular Collapse Isn’t Good for Social Justice

0
Why the GOP's Spectacular Collapse Isn't Good for Social Justice

New Hampshire Republicans vote today and, barring the unexpected, Mitt Romney will celebrate another tepid victory, earning a fraction of his party’s support. The Republican establishment will then begin its coronation effort in earnest, working hard to end the comic tragedy that this primary has been for the party. In so doing, they will surely further alienate the tea party activists they once encouraged–and just as surely risk further dividing their already fractured party. If President Obama is lucky, the GOP establishment may even invite a third-party challenge for itself.

Democrats and many progressives are watching all of this with glee. The Republicans are, it seems, eating their just desserts.

For four years, Republican leaders have fanned the tea party’s destructive flames. They’ve been stoking the rage of the conservative fringe ever since Sarah Palin stood up and told armed, angry crowds of white people that they were the “real America.” When that divisive strategy failed to win the presidency, the party’s establishment happily mounted its tea party tiger and rode roughshod over Capitol Hill. The unvarnished cynicism of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner has been at times obscene; they’ve openly preferred a failed Obama presidency to a successful economic recovery. And the tea party caucus has provided cover for this ugliness, allowing Republican leaders to throw up their hands in helplessness–sorry dude, we’d like to make an effort at governing, but the caucus just won’t allow it.

Given all of this, it’s understandable that many progressives welcome the Republican foibles of recent months. Let them hobble out of the election a divided, weakened party and perhaps in the next four years we’ll see an emboldened, truly reformist Obama presidency, right? Maybe. There’s little doubt the Republican Party’s implosion is good for Democrats. But that doesn’t make it a good thing for those of us who want to see real progress toward a just society.

To be sure, for the Obama camp the Republican primary has truly been a grand old party. Political chief David Axelrod crowed with joy following the Iowa caucuses, noting that Romney got barely more votes than he had just four years earlier–when he lost. “He’s still the 25 percent man,” Axelrod jeered in a morning-after call with reporters. “It is very possible that this race will go on for a while.” And it’s hard to argue with him: The GOP’s newly built, tea party base clearly does not like Mitt Romney.

Congressional Democrats are equally eager to see the tea party show go on. Much like on the national stage, established Republicans are facing frustratingly difficult local primaries that will at least weaken them in the general election–and in some cases produce beatable candidates like 2010′s Sharron Angle.

Take my home state of Indiana. The widely respected Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, who’s been the state’s trusted grandfather since I was a grade schooler, is staring down a meaningful threat from a tea party challenger. Why? In part because unemployment in Indiana is high and people are pissed. Also, though, because he had the audacity to support a path to citizenship for anxious Hoosiers’ undocumented brown neighbors. So now Lugar is fighting for his job, making the once-safe Republican Senate seat vulnerable to Democratic attack. They’ll either have a substantially weakened Lugar to run against, or a neophyte tea party candidate with extreme views. If you’re a Democrat, these are happy times.

But once we set the horse race of partisan politics aside, the Republican collapse begins to look less gratifying. Here’s the thing: Elections are for incumbents all about being held accountable for their choices. And what the Obama White House needs more than anything at this juncture is a jolt of accountability from the social justice reformers who believed in the change it sold four years ago.

Democratic Party leaders have for generations distracted their own base with the horrific threat of their Republican challengers. From LGBT people to unionized workers, the message is too often the same: Never mind our failings, look at the scary other guys. That’s long been a winning strategy for uniting the Democratic coalition. But the Obama team has wielded it against progressive critics with particular vengeance. Indeed, the tea party has in some ways been as helpful a distraction for the White House as it has been an obstructionist tool for the Republicans.

In this light, the Republican field that’s emerging from Iowa and New Hampshire is tailor made for the Obama administration to avoid a much needed reality check with its own reformists supporters. The president will be able to run simultaneously against the lunacy of a Rick Santorum–or, whoever wins the so-called “conservative primary”–and the weakness of Mitt Romney. The latter poses little threat with voters and the former keeps picky progressives off his tail. As long as he faces no meaningful challenge, the president has little reason to vow a course correction from the choices of his first term.

The good news, though, is the president is working hard early to get his own party in order. As the GOP primary has distracted most of the nation with its wild show, the president has taken the opportunity to use the executive power that social justice advocates have been begging him to wield since January 2009. He appointed a consumer watchdog chief. He kept the National Labor Relations Board running. His FCC squashed the AT&T-T-Mobile merger. And he’s even eased off the gas on the relentless pace of deportation that has tarred his presidency.

These are just the sorts of tangible, meaningful policy victories that reformers can eek out when the major parties go to battle with one another. The more meaningful threats the president faces, the more likely we can win more of them. So while I do find the Republican primary battle an amusing piece of political theater, I’m not sure it’s terribly helpful for winning the change I already believe in.

What’s Ahead in 2012? Colorlines.com Writers Weigh in on the New Year

0
What's Ahead in 2012? Colorlines.com Writers Weigh in on the New Year

It’s been a busy, exciting year in the news, and we’ve done our best to both chronicle and explain it every day. Check out Jorge Rivas’s hair-raising video looking back on all that news–2011 in 90 seconds! It’s fun.

Today is the last day Colorlines.com will publish this year–we’ve gotta go spend some time with our families and loved ones. And we’ve gotta get rested and ready for what will be a busy and significant year, dominated by the national debate over priorities that a presidential election brings. This week, we’ve published a series of short essays looking ahead to that discussion. If you’ve missed any, they’ll make great end-of-the-year reading, while we’re out. Here’s a recap:

The Arc Is Bending Toward Justice. But That Doesn’t Make Our Work Easier
by Rinku Sen

The 2012 Attack on Reproductive Rights Will Trade on Women of Color
by Akiba Solomon

Will Young Voters Steal the Show in 2012? Maybe, If Lawmakers Listen
by Jamilah King

Our Economy Was Built on Bull. Until We Admit That, We’re Screwed
by Kai Wright

From the Colorlines.com family to all of yours, we wish you a happy holiday and a healthy new year. See you in 2012!

Republican Congressman Says Michelle Obama Has a ‘Big Butt’

0
Republican Congressman Says Michelle Obama Has a 'Big Butt'

Rep. James Sensenbrenner has a big mouth. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal reports today the veteran Republican legislator was overheard at a church event earlier this month disparaging the first lady’s body. Sensenbrenner told a group of church members that Michelle Obama has no business leading an anti-obesity campaign because she’s got a “big butt.” Classy guy.

It took a 72-year-old church lady to call the lawmaker on his remark. Journal-Sentinal blogger Daniel Brice has the story:

Ann Marsh-Meigs, a church member who heard Sensenbrenner’s remarks, said he took several swipes at the first lady on Dec. 10. In one, Marsh-Meigs said, the congressman claimed Michelle Obama left a recent charitable event when the media did, though Sensenbrenner’s handicapped wife continued to work.

“He then talked about how different first ladies have had different projects – Laura Bush and literacy – and he named two or three others,” Marsh-Meigs said in an interview last week. “And then he said, ‘And Michelle Obama, her project is obesity. And look at her big butt.’

“That’s basically what he said,” she continued. “It was a combination of her work on obesity and her shape.”

After news of the remark began circulating the Web, Sensenbrenner sent a letter of apology to the first lady. But a spokesperson for the jowly lawmaker told Media Bistro’s blog Fish Bowl DC that he “stands by his comments” on her obesity campaign. Fish Bowl DC first reported the story yesterday, when a tipster overheard Sensenbrenner on the phone in the airport reacting to Brice’s questions about the incident.

Marsh-Meigs told the Journal Sentinal that she was the only woman at the table when Sensenbrenner made his remark. She suspects the congressman figured she was too busy with her knitting to notice.

“I was sitting next to him, and I felt he should be called on it,’” said the 72-year-old retiree. “I just said, ‘I just happen to think Michelle Obama is a beautiful and elegant lady, and I think she dresses beautifully.’ And then he said, ‘Oh, well, I think she’s elegant, too.’ He just started back-pedaling.”

Sensenbrenner’s name will be familiar to many Colorlines.com readers. He was the author and lead spokesperson for the infamous 2005 House bill that would have turned all undocumented immigrants into felons and, among other things, criminalized clergy who provided them support.

Our Economy Was Built on Bull. Until We Admit That, We’re Screwed

0
Our Economy Was Built on Bull. Until We Admit That, We're Screwed

At the foot of Manhattan’s Broadway Ave., just below Wall Street, stands one of the city’s most reliable tourism draws: Arturo Di Modica’s 3.5-ton statue of a charging bull. Since 1989, the sculpture has been an iconic symbol of American wealth, of the aggressive capitalist spirit that, it is argued, made this country great and powerful. Visitors flock from around the world to rub the bull’s horns for good luck. Or they used to, at least. Now, tourists snap pictures from behind police barricades.

For more than two months, the raging bull of wealth has sat caged, facing eye-to-eye with a New York Police Department cruiser as cops have worked around the clock to protect it from the Occupy Wall Street movement. The park’s administrator called has the security “Orwellian.” That’s to say the least.

If you’re looking for visuals to encapsulate 2011, look no further than the bizarre scene at Di Modica’s bull. Daily, the country’s largest police force mobilizes to protect the idea of American prosperity from an imagined threat, while the actual economy lays gored and gutted by demonstrable and ongoing crimes.

In the immediate, this perversity results from a spectacular failure of political leadership. We traveled a long, winding road to the point at which no-brainers like a modest payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment benefits demand political brinksmanship. People of varying ideologies and partisan affiliations may debate endlessly who’s more at fault, but to do so is to truly miss the forest for the trees. The ugly reality is no leader in either party has yet shown the mettle to rise and meet the enormity of today’s challenges.

That’s not to suggest moral equivalencies. Republican leaders have been openly obstructionist, preferring a broken economy to a successful Obama presidency. Their cynicism has rarely been as bald as this week’s House vote on the payroll tax cut, but they’ve never made much effort to conceal it.

Still, even if President Obama had been given a willing Congress, the solutions he has championed aren’t nearly on par with the problem. Like his congressional opponents, he insists the structural foundation of our economy remains strong. Rather than confront the core issues–inequity and instability–Obama has thrashed around with Republicans in the margins–over how to control debt, over the degree to which health care should be a commodity rather than a right, over which borrowers were the least irresponsible and thus deserving of help. Meanwhile, at each crucial juncture in his reform-branded presidency, Obama has left financial players to voluntarily take responsibility for their behavior. They remain steadfast in their refusal to do so.

These bipartisan leadership failures have prolonged the immediate crisis, which dates back to 2007, when the foreclosures that would bring down the system first began consuming working-class communities of color in particular. Four years later, Republicans and Democrats alike are still working off of the optimistic notion that we need only contain the immediate problem until we can get back to growth–that we need only protect the bull with barricades until those pesky protesters disappear and allow its charge to resume. With each year that our chosen leaders have indulged this fantasy, a cancer has spread. Each year has brought new records in the poverty, hunger and inequality that will ultimately consume this country.

But that’s just the immediate crisis. As we move into an election year, in which U.S. residents will have prolonged debate over our collective priorities and values, we must pursue answers to a broader question. Since at least 1981, when the Reagan revolution overtook public policy, we have built an economy on two related fictions. The first is that boundless growth is sustainable. The second is that unrestrained capitalism, particularly in the financial sector, will create wealth for everyone. These are discredited ideas, and the question of 2012 must be how we begin building a society based on something different.

This broader question is crucial because, in truth, the problem extends past the economy. Look around and you’ll find one broken institution after another, each of them buckling under the weight of the late 20th century consensus that greed is good, that a winner-takes-all individualism will somehow improve our collective endeavors. Industries, communities, natural resources, even sports leagues have collapsed as Ronald Reagan’s corrosive vision has become dominant.

Meanwhile, racism and racial injustice remain rooted in our society in no small part because they are necessary to explain why unrestrained capitalism and unfettered growth fail so spectacularly in creating widespread wealth. The entrenched, generational poverty that has gripped so many black communities and the yawning racial gaps that persist in wealth and income, among other things, can only be explained if they are blamed on the individuals hurt by them. Thus “welfare queens” and “super predator” youth and cheating “illegals” and “lazy Indians” and on and on. These caricatures continue to inform public policy on poverty, education, immigration and more. They continue to explain away inequity and provide villians against which struggling whites can define themselves without questioning the larger system. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s quote about slave owners–the original unrestrained capitalists–still rings true: “The Southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow.”

Di Modica offered a quote on capitalism, too. In November, Newark’s Star-Ledger asked the artist what he thought about the security around his statue. He didn’t like it. “The bull is for the people,” he declared. “The bull is for everyone, the people with money and the people with no money.” If only it were so.

Wall Street’s bull markets have proven to be for the benefit of a very few. But as the financial industry’s largest players have been unleashed to pursue profit for themselves at all costs, the dreadful consequences have surely impacted everyone. Pensions have been wiped out. Family homes have been stripped of value, many taken away altogether. Small businesses have been locked out of credit markets. More than 14 million people are exiled from the labor force. A galling one in three black children and nearly as many Latino children are growing up in poverty right now, while the president brags about ferreting out fraud in the food stamp program rather than getting more money for it.

Our chosen political leaders have tolerated all of this in order to maintain the fiction that our economic system still works, that the organizing principles of our society remain valid. So the central question of 2012′s likely all-consuming political debate must be simple: How do we acknowledge that our current economy is built on lies and then start erecting a new one based on equity and sustainability?

Condi Rice As the GOP’s Vice Presidential Pick? Hey, It Could Happen

0

It’s not even 2012 yet, but the political rumor mill’s churning up some juicy bits already. Washington Times columnist Joseph Curl raised eyebrows this past weekend by reporting/speculating about Condoleezza Rice angling for the GOP’s vice presidential slot. Curl wrote Sunday in the conservative newspaper:

America’s first black female secretary of state is quietly positioning herself to be the top choice of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, ready to deliver bona fide foreign-policy credentials lacking among the candidates. The 56-year-old has recently raised her profile, releasing her memoir in November and embarking on a monthlong book tour.

After 2 1/2 years as a professor at Stanford, Miss Rice is reportedly getting “antsy” to get back into the political game. “She’s ready to go,” said one top source.

Today, David Johnson over at the Grio says it’s not a crazy idea–at least for the GOP’s presidential nominee, who will struggle to appear more moderate and less racist after the fringe festival of the party’s primary. Johnson writes:

Former Secretary Rice brings a number of positives to the table. She is brilliant, talented and scholarly in an anti-intellectual party that often shuns scientific evidence, the facts, and book learning. In 2008, Forbes listed her as number 7 of the 100 most powerful women. Polls have given her high favorability ratings, the highest of any ex-Bush administration official.

She called race a “birth defect” that will always be a factor in American life, and lamented that public education is no longer helping to lift African-Americans out of poverty.

Good stuff for Republicans, at least. 

Johnson sounds credulous about another rumor, too: That Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will swap jobs for the would-be second term. It’s unclear what would motivate either Biden or Clinton to play along with that plan, if it exists. But what’s the point of an election if you can’t play political what-ifs? Like, what if Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were the leading contenders in the GOP Iowa caucuses? Oh, wait…

Ron Paul Takes Lead Among Iowa GOP, Where Voters Party Like It’s 1964

0
Ron Paul Takes Lead Among Iowa GOP, Where Voters Party Like It's 1964

And then, there was Ron Paul. The players in the dramatic comedy that’s been the GOP primary have each taken a turn on center stage–Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, most recently Newt Gingrich. But it now looks Paul is stealing Gingrich’s scene this week. Yes, Ron Paul of I wouldn’t have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act fame.

Talking Points Memo has the polling details:

The latest results from Democratic pollster PPP show Ron Paul overtaking Gingrich for the top spot with 23% of the vote.

Gingrich is in second place with 20% of the vote and Romney is at 14%. Notably, several of the other candidates have double digit shares, giving them some potential for a last minute surge: Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum are all tied for fourth at 10%. Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson each are at 4%.

So, while Paul’s surging, it’s actually a toss up. Which is cold comfort for racial justice. Check out Colorlines.com contributor Sally Kohn’s “Definitive Guide to Bigotry in the Republican Primaries (So Far).”

The News Never Slows Down, But Sometimes We Must

0

‘Tis the season for more family, friends and loved ones–and less work. And this week we’ll be slowing things down on Colorlines.com, so our small, hard-working staff can get refreshed for what will surely be an intense year of news in 2012.

Next year, we’ll all engage a no-doubt difficult political conversation. Presidential elections are about choosing our head of state, yes, but they’re also about debating and setting our priorities as a nation. Colorlines.com will be there for that debate, offering you the latest news and smartest analysis on how racial justice every day. We’ll be launching some new features to help with that, and in particular we’ll be putting more emphasis on innovative solutions to the problems our reporters cover.

But more on that in the new year. This week, we’ll be publishing a series of year-end essays that don’t just look back at 2011, but also look forward to 2012. What can we expect of this coming national dialogue on priorities and leadership? How will it interesect with–and be driven by–cultural trends outside of politics? And how can we all keep our bearing as it thrashes along?

Today, Colorlines.com publisher Rinku Sen kicks things off by answering that last question. Sen’s advice? Learn how to win, because as quiet as it’s kept, the arc of the moral universe is in fact bending toward justice.

A Bronx Tale: How Racism Created Poverty, and Still Perpetuates It

0
A Bronx Tale: How Racism Created Poverty, and Still Perpetuates It

This article appears in the Jan. 2 edition of The Nation magazine.

A funny thing about poverty: it’s really expensive, especially once you start trying to get out of it. Ginnina Slowe, a 26-year-old who is about to begin college in the Bronx, discovered that irony back in the boom years, when she first attempted to break into the elusive middle class. She was one of many poor and working people who tried to make their American dreams real in those days–and instead learned hard lessons about promises that are too good to be true.

In 2005 Slowe decided to get her GED and associate degree. She found a great-sounding deal at Taylor Business Institute that let her earn both degrees in just two years; it’s a common model at for-profit schools targeting low-income communities. Slowe had to pile on debt and work full time along with classes, but she jumped at the chance. And although the money was stressful, the studies turned out to be a breeze.

“I was like, ‘This is college? I shoulda been doing this a long time ago,’” Slowe says, laughing self-consciously. “It wasn’t as challenging as I assumed it would be. But I was like, ‘Well, maybe I’m smart, I don’t know.’”

She graduated, with a ceremony and a diploma and everything. And her ambition paid off, at first. She got a job as a bank teller, making not-bad money. About a year into it, she received a call from human resources after applying for a promotion. “I thought I got it, but no,” she recalls. They’d run a background check and she didn’t have an accredited degree; they assumed she had gone online and bought a fake one. “The lady was like, ‘Oh, I’m so disappointed in you.’”

The state had shut down Taylor in late 2006, not long after Slowe graduated. Peer reviewers found a shoddy academic operation with “a strong cash flow and unusually high profit.” Its owners came from the world of finance, not education. The school had collected more than $6 million a year in federal and state financial aid through its largely poor students, but in 2004 the library held just four periodicals.

Slowe called around to see if she could do anything to protect herself, but it was a confusing, frustrating situation. Eventually, she settled into a food service job. “You just gotta keep going on,” she says, shrugging as she reflects on the long, winding road she’s still trying to navigate out of poverty. “That’s life.”

That’s life in places like the Bronx, at least, which is the poorest urban county in America. Nearly 28 percent of its families lived below the federal poverty line at the Census Bureau’s last count, in 2010; that rate approaches three times the national mark. Nearly 16 percent of people older than 16 in the Bronx were out of work in 2010.

Those numbers are sadly predictable. The Bronx is nearly 
90 percent black and Latino, and that demographic profile remains a solid indicator of dense poverty and joblessness. More than a quarter of blacks and Latinos nationwide live in poverty, too. Six cities have black jobless rates near or above 20 percent–on par with rates during the Great Depression–according to the Economic Policy Institute. Four more cities can say the same about Latino unemployment. National black unemployment is officially above 15 percent and rising. White unemployment is 7.6 percent.

For decades, the myopic national debate on this deeply racialized poverty has invoked images of poor people as passive victims or self-defeating freeloaders. But people like Slowe have struggled frantically for generations to yank up their individual and communal bootstraps. They have not succeeded because the poverty they live in is not accidental. It’s the result of decades of political choices that first created ghettos and then left them prey to a still growing industry that profits from their existence.

The Bronx, in fact, provides a uniquely clear case study of how yesterday’s economic and political choices constructed the poverty that so many people accept now as a natural phenomenon. From midcentury forward, a series of planning initiatives ripped out the community’s interstitial tissue. Middle-class housing subsidies drove white residents into restricted suburbs. Public funds built highways to move those white migrants to and from equally restricted jobs, tearing down housing in the process and replacing it with high-rise projects. Officialdom turned a blind eye as slumlords milked dry the black and Puerto Rican residents left behind.

By century’s end, the South Bronx was synonymous with hopeless poverty in the national discourse. Three presidents used its manufactured destitution as a backdrop for showcasing their poverty plans to middle-class voters. Also by century’s end, the struggling community–like many others across the country–was swarmed with financial businesses that take advantage of the American dream’s particular resonance in poor, largely black and brown neighborhoods.

There are the rent-to-own furniture sellers that make the trappings of middle-class life wildly expensive. The tax “refund” shops that strip away an estimated $600 million in Earned Income Tax Credits each year. The small-money lenders that have built a $30 billion national business from debt-trap credit schemes. Now banks like Wells Fargo–at which loan officers famously targeted “mud people” with high-priced home loans–have developed new products that consumer advocates say are just better-branded versions of payday lending. All these operations are feasting off the economic carcasses that twentieth-century policy-makers created.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT THE NATION MAGAZINE

Kai Wright's RSS Feed
  • Email Updates

    Contact us with your name and your interest in getting involved and we'll add you to our email updates list!
  • Post Archives

  • Categories

Go to Top