I used to live in South Africa, where the apartheid government used roads and other infrastructure to separate people of different racial groups. In fact, when planning neighborhoods for black people, authorities often ensured there were only one or two entrances and exits, so that police could easily restrict locals.
There are probably more examples of this in the U.S. than many of us are aware of, but as a general phenomenon, it's not a thing. The case that Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg -- fresh from parental leave, you baby-haters -- made on Monday was that there's a kind of systemic racism in insfrastructure.
All of Pete's examples referred to Robert Moses, the guy who planned much of New York City in the 20th century. He was a liberal Republican, meaning that he opposed the Democrat machine but not its big-government philosophy. He allegedly divided communities with roads and underpasses too low for buses.
I tweeted about Buttigieg's likely source -- Robert Caro's 1974 biography of Moses -- which includes Moses's denial of racism and portrays him as a general jerk and megalomaniac rather than a racist. I highly doubt Moses, a Jew in a liberal city, thought his mission was to reinforce white supremacy. But maybe.
Anyway, these examples are pretty weak, and ignore the dynamic possibility that neighborhoods become segregated because of bad planning with good intentions. The government builds a road; the road is bad; the rich people leave; the poor remain. And here comes the government again to "fix" the problem.
Buttigieg is a smart guy. But he was not a great mayor; he himself was accused of racism, and his streets were full of potholes. He took his precious family leave, unannounced, in the middle of a crisis. His plans will fail because they try, like him, all things to all people. That's not how you build a bridge, racist or not.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
