Homicide is a Registered Trademark of C. Ray Nagin
Last week’s outrage was when our Mayor C. Ray Nagin said in response to a TV reporter’s question about whether New Orleans’ murder rate hurts the city’s tourism economy.
Do I worry about it? Somewhat. It’s not good for us, but it also keeps the New Orleans brand out there, and it keeps people thinking about our needs and what we need to bring this community back. So it is kind of a two-edged sword. Sure it hurts, but we have to keep working everyday to make the city better
This is the C. Ray Nagin that plumbs new depths in approval. I’ve not seen him since the State of the City Address. A catered event with a scripted speech in which C. Ray Nagin described a weekend with five homicides a blip.
This latest quip tells us what we already know. Our mayor is a cut up who does not take our plight seriously. He speaks off the cuff in closed quarters to entertain the press. We are suffering the highest murder rate in the nation under his police chief. He is not present for our continuing crisis. He is off raising money for Quixotic run for governor or congress.
When he is in front of the press he does not speak for us. He does not say anything that reflects our experience. He’s casting about on the New Orleans brand building his own C. Ray Nagin brand.
This made me think of an episode of The Show with Ze Frank. The episode is about branding. Ze talks about brands in reference to John Carr the creepy confessor to murder of Jon Benet. Ze Frank describes Jon Benet as a brand and describes a brand as an emotional aftertastes associated with an experience.
Our Mayor wants to build our brand by associating it with the emotional aftertaste of homicide.
Rather than putting forward a clean and consistent message, our mayor will pander with outrageous statements that get him into the news cycle, get him some attention, and give him a chance to laugh it off among the few people that still listen to him.
He could not have made a comment of that sort while we were reeling from the dismissal of two notorious murder cases, but now that this has passed, and C. Ray Nagin has survived, it’s time to clown again.
- The Upside of Murder – Dangerblond.
- Nagin to murder victims: Thank you for your sacrifice – Schroder.
- Oops He Did It Again! Nagin Embarrasses New Orleans – Jeff Crouere.
- It keeps the New Orleans brand out there – Mark Mosely.
- Sugar Ray Nagin is Delusional – The Chicory.
2 Comments | 1 Trackback |
comments feed  |
[...] This comes a week after our mayor assured us that murder builds the New Orleans brand. [...]
Nagin’s remark was obviously deplorable. How could he even think of saying such a terrible thing? In trying to understand this, I began to wonder if to an extent Nagin’s insensitivity is encouraged or fostered by a context of widespread insensitivity to problems of gun violence by leaders in major cities all across the U.S. (Please forgive me, but I guess I am psychoanalyzing Mr. Nagin!…) I mean, even though his remark and his attitude were obviously WAY out of line, was it an extreme maninfestation of an overall blase attitude that urban leaders often have towards gun violence? Granted, I am certain some leaders in some cities have actually made great strides towards this problem; but it seems to me that there is a tendency among elected officials across the U.S. to accept that a certain amount of “gang-related” homicide e.g. “black on black” homicide is both ACCEPTABLE and INEVITABLE in a city or neighborhood. I’m not saying all current NOLA gun violence is gang-related; for instance, the insane man who recently killed a young woman in a bar obviously had no gang affiliation. but it seems to be to some extent, as in all major U.S. cities. And just as in all cities, even when the SHOOTER is a member of a gang, quite often the VICTIMS of homicides have nothing to do with a gang, and just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time… either due to mistaken identity, or just getting hit by a stray bullet. But many urban leaders seem to say — “this type of gun violence will always be there,” to some extent. And some average citizens have the idiotic attitude that people shot in gang violence are NOT often innocent bystanders. Further, for many leaders it seems to be o.k. to fail to solve the problem, as long as it doesn’t rise above a certain level or creep out of the “bad” blocks or “bad” neighborhood to affect the rest of a city problem. — Finally, I really think some white folks, in general, think that the victims of gang violence are NOT innocent bystanders but are involved in something wrong and therefore somehow do “DESERVE” to be victims of this violence.
SO… not to excuse Nagin’s attitude, but I wonder if he’s been bitten by a prevalent bug of cynicism?
I can’t offer any evidence or references here to back up my many hypotheses about urban leaders across the U.S. or the opinions of some “white folks.” My remarks are based on n accumulation of random, anecdotal, off-the-cuff observations, and I know I could easily be very wrong about some of my statements. But just wanted to try to put some ideas out there, and see what anyone thinks.