|
From an attorney
Report on Youth UpRising Dance Business
Touches Nerve
We summarized a Los Angeles Times report on Youth UpRising, which trains teens in the "turf dancing" practiced at sideshows and hires them out for music videos. That report touched a nerve.
One critic is a Mr. James Anthony. He posted a long piece to the PSA3 email group. First, he tries to substitute a straw man in place of our actual criticism:
"ORPN's rant somehow twists this around and holds Youth Uprising responsible for all the evils associated with sideshows – it's an absurd attempt to bash Measure Y by making it look like a funder of criminality."
No, we did not evaluate all of Youth UpRising's work, nor did we hold the agency responsible for sideshows. We did question why our violence prevention money should be used to train and hire out youth for music videos that celebrate the sideshow culture.
The defenders of Youth UpRising seem to think that getting youth to dance on a supervised stage early in the evening once a month is a great accomplishment in itself. Mr. Anthony, without providing any evidence, soars to the sky:
"[Do you object to] Youth Uprising's working within the culture of youth to accentuate the positive and to build community, depth, and critical thinking? Is it the dance you object to? The personal expression ("rap" also known as poetry)? Gang alternatives? A young organizer encouraging a youth community to seek depth?"
Critical thinking? Seeking depth? All we have seen are some well-done moves, although rather derivative of moon-walking in the style of Michael Jackson. Big lovely words are not facts, Mr. Anthony.
Let's face it. We have a right to see evidence that funded activities actually reduce disruptive and violent behavior.
Furthermore, we assert that very few youth can make a productive life from dancing in music videos and any other business associated with the sick commercialized culture derived from sideshows. We have no objection to engaging youth via what interests them, provided it leads to something productive, since the taxpayers are financing it. For example, where is the objective evidence that Youth UpRising has helped significant numbers of youth move from classes on turf dancing to the academic basics that anyone needs to make a living in the economy for 40 or 50 years? Feel-good dance scenes are not enough.
The violence prevention money comes out of Measure Y. Councilmembers insisted we must split the revenue between police and social programs. We need 1,100 police, but Measure Y has done nothing to address that need. The money for social programs needs solid evidence of results. Training teens and hiring them out for music videos is not an appropriate use of City money.
Mr. Anthony would like to switch the spotlight from Youth UpRising to Oakland Residents for Peaceful Neighborhoods. He wrote:
"You don't think they have a rather alarmist bias against Y that distorts everything they say? They sued the city and lost, remember?"
Well, ORPN receives no City grants; Youth UpRising does. Regarding our stand on Measure Y, read all you want on this website.
As for Mr. Anthony, he went from a position in the Oakland City Attorney's office to private practice, where he represented the notorious Moore family of south Berkeley. (Berkeley Daily Planet, April 11, 2006) The drug-dealing out of their house on Oregon Street was the subject of victorious legal action by neighbors. The Moore clan has a right to a lawyer, Mr. Anthony has a right to be their attorney – and we have a right to evaluate his position as much as he questions ORPN.
It is a great democratic step forward that people are finally debating the culture of disruption in Oakland. It has real victims, from the thousands of people that "boom cars" leave crying in agony to the victims of sideshows, people who have lost their cars to mob violence and even their life to the reckless driving.
We don't expect an apology from the participants in sideshows. We just want peaceful streets.
– July 23, 2006
|
