How can Malik Evans Assert, with a straight face, that ‘the state of the city is healthy and strong’
To say that Mr. (Mayor) Malik Evans is out of touch with his Hamilton Street roots is a gross under-statement. It appears that he has clearly gone over to the other side—he has become part of the Black mis-leadership class—if he wasn't already.
Many argue that his performance, or lack thereof during his long tenure as President of the Rochester Board of Education represents proof-positive that he crossed over long ago. He actually reminds me of former President Obama, in the sense that when the latter gave orders to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan pointed out that the rabid capitalists who had supported Obama's ascendancy to their White House, had turned him into a murderer.
I'm not saying that Malik Evans has murdered anyone. I don't think he has. However those who supported the efforts by which he doubled the campaign funds raised by Rochester's most recent, former Mayor, have certainly put limits on his ability to tell the truth. This is abundantly obvious via his April 19, 2023 potentially Emmy-award-winning performance in the form of a so-called "State of the City Address," which is exactly that (nothing more, nor less than a grand performance, riddled with irrefutable lies).
He was unnecessarily mendacious right out of the blocks. He claimed that "the state of Rochester [which has been named in a (wallethub.com) list as one of the worst-run major cities in the U.S.] is healthy and strong. "How could that possibly be when Rochester has been identified as the second worst place in this thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based nation-state for Black folks to live, and the city's schools are considered to be among the nation's worst?
Half of the city's children live in abject poverty (grossly disproportionate percentages of them are Black and other children of color), which is only one, minuscule indicator of the depth and breadth of long standing, historic, individual, institutional, and structural racism here in modern-day-slave-town U.S.A.
He could have easily made it a true statement by simply asserting that "the state of Rochester is healthy and strong" for some (like himself, his family, and moneyed supporters), while it's clearly unhealthy and weak for many others. No amount of posturing, grandstanding, and half-truths will change the fact that Rochester is still, as it always has been, a near perfect model regarding 'the tale of two cities' (one largely white, wealthy and safe, and the other largely Black dirt-poor, and unsafe).
The Mayor claimed that "the image of a safer, equitable, and prosperous Rochester is coming into view." I'm quite certain that's true for him and those closest to him, especially every time they look at their bank accounts, and I'm also absolutely certain that, where the Black masses are concerned, there is no safety, equity, and/or prosperity coming into view. Instead, when they look at their bank accounts—that is, if they even have one—all they see are zeroes. Thus, if I was the Mayor's advisor, I would suggest that he should knock it off with the super-hyper prosperity-rhetoric. It's not becoming.
Amazingly, he claimed that, "with our history of segregation and discrimination, it has left us with another legacy, a legacy of poverty”. Really? A legacy of poverty, and not RACISM? How in the world does segregation and discrimination = poverty, but not racism, especially since racism clearly is the underlying, foundational factor that produced the discrimination and segregation. That is to say, had white folks not been racist, they would not have engaged in segregation and/or discrimination in the first place. However, the major point here is that the disingenuous, elusive Mayor is intentionally avoiding the term racism.
Again, it is quite amazing, and quite telling that, within the nearly one-and-a-half-hour Emmy-award-level-performance, the deep-seated, thoroughly pervasive forbidden fruit issue of individual, institutional, and structural racism is not mentioned even once. Yet, do you mean to tell us that he and his super-wealthy friend Adam Bello really expect Black folks to believe that they are serious about addressing racism via the phony RASE initiative?
Why was racism not mentioned during the Mayor's performance? It was not mentioned because he knows that his benefactors (who some refer to as modern-day-"massahs") do not want to hear it. It makes them feel uncomfortable, shameful, and guilty, which they will not tolerate, and the Mayor knows it. So, he adheres to not disturbing their deep-seated, race-based cognitive dissonance and hegemony, period. I had mentioned this to him when he did the same thing during his inauguration speech. He thanked me, and claimed it was “so-noted”. Right.
Lastly, for this guy, who compared himself to Johnny Appleseed, to attempt to make a legitimate case that there's any possibility at all (depending on our actions today) that a single, dichotomous legacy (of poverty or prosperity) will be left for all of our children, is not only disingenuous, but is straight up dishonest and insulting. I mean, does he really think he can convince us that depending on what is done or not done today or tomorrow, there's any possibility at all that his children, Golisano's, Richards', Duffy's, or Wilmot's grandchildren, or the Eastman clan, or other super-wealthy people's children and/or grandchildren will inherit a so-called "legacy of poverty"?
As one of our esteemed community Elders has pointed out, (and I’ll paraphrase) he really does need to place himself back in his seat.
How scandalous!
References:
