[mp3-jplayer tracks=”CounterSpin Marcia Gallo Full Show @https://eadn-wc04-3257648.nxedge.io/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin160513.mp3″]
This week on CounterSpin: The 1964 New York city murder of Kitty Genovese started as a personal tragedy and a tiny item on a New York Times back page. Within months, it had become an internationally known, emblematic tale—not about Genovese, whose life most reports dispensed with quickly with the phrase “Queens barmaid,” or about her killer, Winston Moseley—but about the neighbors, 38 of them, we were told, who reportedly watched Genovese die in the street but did nothing, didn’t come to her aid or call the police. They just, we heard, didn’t want to get involved. The idea of “urban apathy” struck a deep cultural chord that resonates to this day.
But what if the tale we’ve all heard isn’t true? Marcia Gallo is assistant professor of history at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the author of the book “No One Helped”: Kitty Genovese, New York City and the Myth of Urban Apathy. The book disentangles the story from the reality of Genovese’s death and her life and explores the social and historical context in which the fable was created. We’ll hear from Marcia Gallo today on CounterSpin.
Transcript: ‘An Entire Neighborhood Was Defamed’
[mp3-jplayer tracks=”CounterSpin Marcia Gallo Interview @https://eadn-wc04-3257648.nxedge.io/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin160513Gallo.mp3″]
First, as usual, we’ll take a look back at recent press, including Canadian fires, Bernie Sanders’ ideas and Paul Ryan vs. Donald Trump.
[mp3-jplayer tracks=”CounterSpin Banter @https://eadn-wc04-3257648.nxedge.io/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin160513Banter.mp3″]
GUEST LINK:
- “No One Helped”: Kitty Genovese, New York City and the Myth of Urban Apathy, by Marcia M. Gallo (Cornell University Press)
I grew up in suburbia the 1960’s and 1970’s with exactly the ‘Kitty Genovese” viewpoint of urban area of the USA. So it was one of the great epiphanies of my life when I moved to a “inner city” neighborhood in Pittsburgh and fond exactly the opposite was true – my neighbors looked out for each other and everyone else on the block to a far, far greater degree than I had ever seen in affluent suburbia.
Unfortunately, this is changing a these same neighborhoods become gentrified with people bringing their suburban attitudes to the city…
First of all, with regard to the Canadian fires and global warming we are left with a conundrum, the very same conundrum that should have been confronted during the catastrophic fire season last summer and fall during the height of our drought. Because it may be true that “climate change” is really “global warming” and that we should therefore expect heightened temperatures which in turn could be sited as causal in the story of these horrific firestorms. But that’s not the whole story, and that’s certainly not the “true story”. Because all global warming models advanced by elite scientists (such as those at NASA) not only dictate that we should expect higher temperatures but also a far greater amount of rainfall as well. So really, the California and recent Canadian fires simply do not fit the mold and can not be construed as representative of the trends that we should expect. Rather, both instances represent a contradiction of what should be expected, and therefore can not and must not be contextualized in the manner that your broadcast urges, as consequences of global warming and its otherwise hidden costs. Now, if that’s not logical enough for you all, then you all are simply NOT being logical. And I have a problem with that. Furthermore, if by chance an investigation into global meteorological trends ends up showing both a raise in temperature and an aggregate drop in global precipitation, then your original conclusions–that the Canadian fire was CAUSED BY global warming–might actually make good sense. But then you’d have to deal with the secondary issue that you’ve been ignoring all along, which is how to explain the divergence from the standard models. Higher termperatures in the context of reduced precipitation–this scenario represents a very news worthy event to be sure, but only if journalists like yourselves keep your heads on your shoulders and your eyes on the ball. Higher temperatures and drought represents a major anomaly, and if true should become THE story. Because according to your stated expectations, climate scientists are all wrong. “They” expect heat waves and floods while YOU ALL at Counterspin have misinterpreted their findings so as to force the Canadian fire story into your pet peeve about “global warming”, a scenario that quite simply does NOT fit the science. You exhort conservatives to get real about the science, while you yourselves fabricate the science out of whole cloth. Now that’s what I call hypocrisy, and I mean it truly. You’ve misrepresented the science and thus lent credence to the conservative point of view that dismisses the entire climate issue out of hand. Bad bad bad. Even worse is your categorical omission of the contribution made to the debate by those whom you pejoratively dismiss as “conspiracy theorists”–a term which coming from your mouths constitutes outright hate speech. Even so, it’s the community of the so called “conspiracy theorists” that posit the notion that “global warming” will be accompanied by a dramatic reduction in precipitation (the distorted scenario that you all are trying to impose on “the data” that is the Canadian fire story) , only they claim that the cause of the latter has to do with the introduction of a variable into the climate equation that none of you “namby-pamby” liberals seem able to get your minds around, and that’s the story of “geo-engineering” and “chemtrails”. With huge masses of aluminum allegedly being pumped out of the ass of airplanes everywhere, one would expect dry forests poised to go up like tinder boxes due not only to drought stress, but also due to the addition of the fire stoking catalyst that is the aluminum pollution that so many activists have observed and complained about. But of course, you all are nothing but lame ass gate keepers with a case of historical amnesia that would make Orwell’s famous farm animals blush with shame. So it goes in the house of evil minions like yourselves, so pumped up with self righteousness you can’t even bother to get either facts or the theory straight. And that sucks. Because I have to put up with people brainwashed by your broadcasts all the time. They are evil people motivated on the basis of your studiously crafted tapestry of bullshit. No thanks to the Pacifica Network, I’ll never ever be contributing to those slimeballs. There’s a thing called “grass roots”, and then there’s a thing called “astro-turf”. Your coverage of the Canadian fires and your effort to shame the rest of the media for not reporting it as a consequence of global warming represents a new low, even for you. Get your facts and theories straight, and expand your coverage to include the ideas and insights of those you would otherwise seek to insult and enrage. Next time I hear you all disparage another member of my political persuasion and I’ll be coming down to your damn offices to complain personally. The world is run by conspiratorial cabals, and it’s only appropriate that the realist would therefore seek to align their understandings regarding the structure of global power so as to properly reflect the underlying reality. Hence, conspiracy theory is the viewpoint of those with true knowledge, while red-neck assholes like you are the shit that needs to be eradicated from the discourse, if not eliminated from society altogether. Personally, I’d like to see you all gunned down by one of your operatives. That would righteous. I look forward therefore to shitting on your gate-keeper grave. Fuck you and the horse you road in on.
One of the best articles about the issues raised by Kitty’s brutal slayings was “The Cold Society” by Nat Hentoff which appeared, I believe, in 1966 in Playboy Magazine. A first-class piece of reporting and analysis.