|
Tuesday, 01 May 2007 18:07 |
 Graffiti has taken on a new and infamous role in the political debate of Ashevilleís elected officials.
No longer the petty misdemeanor most Americans have long thought it to be, graffiti has now been deemed ìterrorismî by at least one city official: Councilman Carl Mumpower.
ìGraffiti is a form of urban terrorism that is anything but innocent or artistic,î Mumpower wrote in a publicly released e-mail to town officials on March 20.
Urban terrorism?
We wonder what is next ó will suspected ìgraffiti artist combatantsî be
held in secret detention facilities, deemed too dangerous to be
permitted a conventional trial?
Will those irrational souls who see merit in the artistic renderings
of self-styled urban artists be accused of giving comfort to the enemy
and endangering our police officers?
In all seriousness, graffiti can be destructive and the city has
stepped up efforts at combatting the problem. The Asheville Police
Department has created a new graffiti task force, which uses digital
technologies to track different stylistic ìtagsî in an attempt to
identify specific artists. So far, several people have been charged as
a result of the task forceís efforts.
But while there is a legitimate argument to be made that some graffiti
may ìhave major harmful economic impact on our downtown, thoroughfares,
and neighborhoods,î as Mumpower wrote in the same e-mail, the
significance of this activity is questionable, to say the least.
And the hyperbole of equating spray painting on someone elseís property
with the mass murder of innocent people leaves one wondering if the
good doctor could stand a healthy dose of perspective.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time the councilman has
bandied the term ìterrorismî about when referring to much lesser
offenses. In comments to City Council and in his self-styled campaign
against drug dealers, Mumpower has also referred to drug trafficking as
ìterrorism.î
We wonder what the families of 9/11 victims and others killed by actual
terrorists would feel about such trivializing of the term.
Clearly, Mumpower is a man of strong principles ó and someone who is
willing to stand up for those principles. For that, he deserves much
respect.
However, his generalizations about the evils of graffiti belie a
failure of discernment. While some graffiti is offensive, inartistic
and destructive, much of it is none of these things.
One need look no further than Chicken Alley downtown to find masterful
street paintings that reveal exceptional technique, humor and symbolic
depth.
Likewise, crack cocaine and methamphetamines do ravage many
neighborhoods. To his credit, Mumpower has done much to draw attention
to these issues and was instrumental in creating the Dealer Down
program, which focuses on large-scale deealers of the most harmful
drugs such as heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamines.
Recently, however, Mumpower has turned his attention towards the users
ó not dealers ó of marijuana and other less-destructive drugs.
While we do not condone such activities, it should be noted that not
all drug use is the same, just as not all graffiti is destructive.
And none of it is even remotely terrorism.
|
