2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf you were going to argue that POC shouldn't switch from HRC to Bernie...what would be your case?
(note: this is addressed to those trying to hold the POC vote for HRC as it begins to slip away...not POC themselves, who deserve full respect for whatever choices they make).
Other than schmoozing and getting interviewed in magazines that run ads for fade cream, what actual significant achievements for AA voters can you point to from HRC?
What actual concern did she ever show about institutional racism before 2015, when she finally made a few speeches about it?
When did she actually stop supporting "law and order" I don't need to remind anyone what that is always a code phrase for, do I?)?
What incidents can you point to where she ever took any actual political risks in standing with POC? Showed any actual courage on the anti-racism front?
POC voters deserve every Democratic candidate's loyalty and UNINTERRUPTED solidarity, because that is the only way to show respect for that or any other community a candidate seeks support from. How would you spin all the years when she clearly did interrupt her solidarity with POC on the actual issues?
What case would you make that she deserves continued POC support more than anybody else?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ending the war on drugs would be bad for AA communities?
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
valerief
(53,235 posts)It's killing me!!!!
I wanna change mine to Christian Atheist.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)"Hey Hill! How's the campaign going?"
valerief
(53,235 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)JudyM
(29,265 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)it's real.
JudyM
(29,265 posts)Paternalistic BS.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It means you follow (or at least want to follow) the teachings of the Christ as told in the mythology (the New Testament), but you don't believe in or propound the literal truth of the mythology. That's more of a Christian than those who claim to believe the literal truth of this prophet existed and was resurrected etc. etc. but do not follow (or even advocate the opposite of) the teachings - the most important of which are love thy neighbor and don't let priests steer you against the spirit of the law. I'm not a Christian atheist, but Christian atheists do actually exist.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Response to guillaumeb (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)choosing voices that anger and alienate the most reliable democratic votes for two generations is a good way to 'expand his base'?
Could it be that they believe they will have nowhere else to go and are taking PoC GE votes for granted?
When William Clinton trashed Sister Souljah, promoted welfare reform with similar racist language as did Reagan, executed Ricky Ray Rector, and passed NAFTA, and banking reform, all of these things did nothing for the bottom 90% but demonstrated that Clinton was a reliable voice for the 1%.
So, speaking of taking people for granted......
Response to guillaumeb (Reply #11)
Name removed Message auto-removed
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am speaking to all voters when I mention that corporate Democrats often pass legislation that is an attack on working people. They do this because the Democrats recognize that the GOP offers nothing to workers. But this GOP-lite is also the reason for an apathetic electorate that allows aging white Tea Partiers to make a difference because they actually vote in every election.
Response to guillaumeb (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but if you really want to know, I believe that color, sexual orientation, religion, language, and other things are all used to divide the working class.
Being a white male, I cannot experience racism directed against non-whites, but I know that it exists. I can never feel that racial hate, but I sympathize with the victims.
Being straight, I will never experience hatred based on sexual orientation. But I can be outraged by it, and speak against it.
It is said that until all of us are free, none of us are free. How can anyone disagree?
My perspective is unique to me, as yours is to you. But I do not discount the value of yours.
But I do not see where any of Sanders message demonstrates a refusal to acknowledge the real problems with discrimination in the US.
madokie
(51,076 posts)spot on
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)This whole "Bernie ignores (insert group name here) people", ignores the fact that Sanders, like many leftists, bases his positions on a class analysis. Many people automatically assume that class analysis=Marxism/Russian Communism. This is simplistic, but given that US schools do not really teach anything but "capitalism triumphant" it does not surprise me.
this too is spot on
Our children are being taught what the status quo wants taught. It's always been that way but it needs to change.
I've learned so much more since I came to DU. 10 years or so versus 57 years or so
thats why I must make a contribution even though I'm good until august. To show my appreciation for this wonderful place.
thank you DU Admins and Participants for the lessons taught
Response to guillaumeb (Reply #22)
Name removed Message auto-removed
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I have lived and worked in the Chicago area for many years. When our family first moved here we were stunned at the level of race hate, and how openly it was expressed.
Our church group has held numerous forums on racism in the past 3 years. The group is about 1/4 black, a few Latino/a, the rest white. The church posted a black lives matter sign on the outside sign last year and received quite a few nasty calls and emails. It amazes and saddens me that 400 years after the first black slaves came to this country, a fair number of people still cannot accept the idea of equality.
I agree that racial equality should come first. It should have come after your civil war, for that matter.
But I still feel that the only way to change people is to reach out to them, even if they attend LU, or wear a Trump hat. We must talk to everyone about the message of equality.
Cornel West is provocative, unnecessarily so in my view. I feel he alienates people.
elias49
(4,259 posts)WTH?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He went there and spoke AGAINST racism.
And Bernie was seeking to get Trump voters to support an anti-racist program by addressing the class problems that drove them to support racist politicians in the past out of false consciousness.
Every step of Bernie's campaign has been a direct challenge to the foundations of white supremacism.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as though Bernie can only gain POC votes by ditching Cornel West.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)They are far from happy with what is being done in Bernie's name. And with Bernie, who has so far completely failed to build the coalition he must have to win. And time is running out. Apparently some around Bernie, by far mostly white, feel they should copy the GOP and not bother to earn minority support but simply fill forums like this one with propaganda claiming minorities are "at rest."
What the hell does THAT mean, anyway? All's well -- our minorities are not "restless?" Is that our version of the GOP's little token OUT-reach to minorities to keep them...at rest?
This is not who we are. It is not what we want to be.
Most here won't realize that many of those pro-Bernie "We Can, We Will"-style videos and articles brought here to DU are being produced by mostly white groups, or people associated with them, in an attempt to fool us into believing all is calm, all is bright for Bernie.
While checking some of this stuff out for yourself right here at DU, take a moment to check out the website design of OWS-associated People For Bernie. It should look familiar to DUers who like videos.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody in the Sanders campaign ever said "OK, POC don't matter, and we won't try to get them". We never dismissed them. And Bernie NEVER said that economic justice mattered more than fighting racism(never ONCE).
Bernie is gaining AA endorsements every day now.
It's bullshit to act like we "don't get it".
Everything has changed.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)this situation before it blows up in his face, and the Democratic Party's. These white groups would not be pretending to speak for minorities if they weren't worried.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)there. 18% of the student body is African American. They do not have racist teachings or policies, they do have anti gay policies which is why I as a gay person was thrilled to see Bernie go there and instantly state his support for LGBT equality, first thing. When Hillary went to Saddleback she opened with praise for Rick Warren and his congregation and lots of words of agreement with them, admiration for them. She did not state her views differed from theirs nor did she advocate for equality or choice in that venue.
You seem confused and misinformed.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hope things are nice in Portlandia today.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)No one is calling Sanders a racist but there are valid reasons why some voters are not accepting Sanders as a good candidate. One reason may be the vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only hed fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. I do not believe that Sanders is a racist but I also believe that there are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democrats are not supporting Sanders.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Sanders and his supporters' refusal to speak truthfully about race, rather than using class to deflect from the real issue, is hurting Bernie.
So I, as a black woman who hates HRC and would like to support Bernie, am turned off by two issues:
1. Bernie Sanders' own policy on race, specifically his argument that racial justice can only be achieved through economic justice and equality. This argument could not be more false. And there is ample EMPIRICAL evidence to demonstrate how false that argument is.
2. Bernie Sanders' so-called white liberals, many who have been incredibly condescending, arrogant and offensive. And yes, I've witnessed racism in the ranks as well, just as I did with HRC supporters back during the 2007-2008 Democratic primary season.
Neither candidate speaks to me and that has left me without a candidate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)to ask about what motivates POC to vote for one candidate or the other?
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it has been proven that he NEVER said or even thought that fighting racism was less important than working for economic justice(which is also an anti-racist fight in significant respects, since a society with egalitarian economics will probably be far less racist than a society with market economics...look at how much more bigoted India has become as its economy has become more capitalist, for example).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm scratching my head as to how this is a boast. And I don't agree about India, but that is neither here nor there.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)India was never anywhere near as virulently anti-Muslim or as fascistically Hindu-nationalist when it's economic model was more egalitarian. A compulsion to get rich pretty much always goes with less-compassionate and empathetic attitudes towards other people. Pretty much every new tycoon in India underwrites bigoted hatemongers like Narendra Modi.
Look at how much worse things have got between white people and POC here since 1981. It correlates directly with the rise of corporate control of our lives. Market values pit us against each other, and you basically can't be pitted against other people without developing greater fear and hatred towards them.
The only way to really get past it is to make sure people stop seeing life as zero-sum...stop believing that any gain for somebody else has to be a loss for them. And it isn't possible to get past that and do nothing about economic inequality and the want and fear of want that causes.
You can't get people to stop hating by just saying "stop hating".
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)See, it is stuff like this that makes me wonder how much thought you have ever given this issue.
It appears to be an afterthought.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There have been some small gains in the Obama era, and I'm glad there were.
By 2008, virtually every gain the freedom movement made in the Sixties was lost. Almost nothing remained. That's just reality.
And saying that isn't a diss of the Obama administration or the AA community at all, so why act like it was?
Racism did nothing but win under Reagan and both Bushes...there were no victories for civil rights under either...Bill schmoozed with the wealthiest AA's, but his policies did nothing but make life worse for POC. The Democratic Party showed it didn't care about fighting racism in the Eighties when it said no to Jesse Jackson's candidacy both times(no other candidates in '84 or '88 really gave a damn about fighting racism by then...Mondale gave up on fighting it in his candidacy, so did Dukakis).
My respects to those who battled on against the right-wing racist onslaught in any case.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm kind of stunned anyone would make that claim. We are talking big picture- and it's not all about the paycheck.
Opportunity wise, huge strides were made. For women as well. It's bizarre this would go unrecognized.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Just that, between 1981 and 2008, it was nothing but lost ground for AA's as a group, and only minor gains since.
The strides were all BEFORE 1981.
There were no victories in the anti-racist fight between 1981 and 2008. No gains at all in that era. This goes without saying.
Nothing happened in those twenty-seven years but white folks taking everything away.
That statement is a condemnation of white ugliness. It isn't an attack on POC, so don't act like it is.
It is SLIGHTLY better than the Jim Crow era...but that's the lowest of low bars.
If there had been any victories for the civil rights/anti-racist cause between 1981 and 2008, Black Lives Matter wouldn't need to exist.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)in the last 30 years or so- but I am in a very liberal and was already integrated area, so that may make a difference.
No one is spinning your statements as an "attack" on POC but I do think you are looking at this through a very narrow lens that allows you to ignore great societal changes.
Are you saying India is more bigoted now than it was in the 1980s?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)And my wife spent a lot of her childhood in India.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)has meant there was NEVER been an "egalitarian system" in India, for which to make an comparison?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And like a lot of historical scholarship, it's very controversial but the fight is actually about the present rather than the past (sound familiar to a black American? )
The Caste System in the sense that people generally mean seems to have been codified under the Gupta empire in the 400s of the current era. (If you've ever seen the batshit crazy Phantom time hypothesis conspiracy theory, my favorite absurdity of it is that it makes the Gupta empire never have existed.) Of course it came from antecedents before that, but it was roughly equivalent to the feudal systems that were simultaneously developing in China and Europe as the Han and Roman empires broke down and took international trade with them. It was largely a reaction to Jainism and Buddhism gaining ground among non-Brahmins and refusing to grant what had been traditional -- but not yet codified -- Brahminic privileges. In this sense, you could view Hinduism itself becoming a "religion" in the modern sense in response to the universalist creeds of Buddhism and Jainism (and later, of course, the much more universalist Islam), rather than Buddhism and Jainism being "reformations" (to use the European term) of an existing Hindu "religion". (And while we're here, "Hindu" literally means "living near the Indus river", a body of water now entirely within Pakistan -- yes, this irritates Pakistanis.)
Southern India and Southeast Asia had had Brahminic influence for centuries (that's actually why it's called "Indo-China", apparently), but had also adopted Buddhism quite early. So the caste "system" in the sense of a legalized code of privileges and requirements was initially a northern institution, and it remained (and remains) strongest north of the Deccan, in the Gangetic plains.
Islam, as I mentioned above, is probably the most absolutist of universalist religions, and its incursion into and conquest of the subcontinent provided an even more effective foil against which Hinduism and the caste system could define themselves. (Interestingly, India is the only place Islamic armies conquered without serious attempts to convert the population to Islam before or after.)
The caste system was then used by European colonial powers (the British more than the French or Portuguese) as part of the classic divide-and-rule tactic, but in fairness they didn't need much help: by the 1700s the caste system was so inextricably linked with Hinduism and "Indianness" that even Nestorian Christians, Muslims, Jews, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs had adapted their communal identities and economies into the caste framework. (Caste was much, much more than just ethnic discrimination: it was an entire economic and political system. There were castes whose economic role was to make a specific kind of basket that a different caste's role was to use to dry fish.)
Well-meaning British liberals were horrified by some of the aspects of the caste system, and in the end saw "freeing our benighted colored cousins" from its influence as one of the many laudable outcomes of Empire. "The Story of Little Black Sambo" is from this period, and is actually about a South Indian boy, and is actually for the time a fairly left-wing story about how even a poor Indian could, by adopting western attitudes and technology, achieve happiness.
Anyways. Fast forward to Partition and Independence in '47. The part of Greater India that became Pakistan had not been as caste-centric because Islam had had a much greater influence (Bangladesh, however, was both tribe- and caste-centric, which reminds me that I'm ignoring the simultaneous tribal rather than castal systems, which would be yet another dissertation). Bharat (that's the Hindi word for "India" in the sense of the Republic) was left with Bharat proper (the Ganges plain), the Deccan ("the South" , and the northwest and northeast (mountains and jungles, respectively). The caste system was much stronger around the Ganges than in the South, but it was still noticeable in the South as well. So, when crafting the Constitution, The Caste System was declared illegal, and victory was declared over centuries of oppression.
OK, well, even back then people weren't that stupid. For 60 years now, part of the implementation of outlawing caste has been, ironically, the most comprehensive definition and enrollment of castes in Indian history. Literally the first time that every single Indian person in India was officially and legally designated as being in a particular caste was after the 1950 census; even at the height of the Gupta empire that never happened. (c.f. the "who's black?" question whenever reparations is brought up.)
This enrollment had to happen because it was immediately recognized that affirmative action would be necessary to actually dig the caste system up by its roots. So, quotas were set aside for "scheduled" (i.e. "low" castes and tribes. If you remember the broohaha about that Indian diplomat in NYC underpaying her maid, people read caste exactly the wrong way into that: the diplomat was of significantly "lower" caste than the maid, who is Catholic and of mixed Portuguese descent (the diplomat has since been convicted of -- I shit you not -- illegally buying a condo in Mumbai that was supposed to be set aside for war widows. You can't make this shit up.).
Anyways. Sorry for the history-spew, but your question was interesting and cut to the heart of the OP's rather... odd... assertion. On a personal note, my wife actually technically lost her caste when she married me, though since she hasn't legally changed her name yet nobody can tell that immediately (caste is in many cases identifiable by last name). And as a final point to anyone reading: asking a person of Indian origin his or her caste is kind of strikingly rude, like looking at someone with my ambiguous skin tone and saying "so what are you, really?" (I sometimes say accurately "octaroon" just to then watch them surreptitiously look it up.)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)India now has a prime minister who is a right-wing Hindu supremacist, whose party blames virtually all of India's problems on the Muslim and other non-Hindu minorities.
His government has a huge majority in parliament and massive support in the majority community in the country.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A good first step is pointing out that the BJP backlash is precisely because of the social (and, yes, also market) liberalizations that have happened over the past 30 years here. Your premise is just flat out wrong on any number of fronts.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Source?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)That is a fact. No one can deny it. Those here on "Democratic" Underground who sneer at this fact don't share its values.
Hillary does not share these values. She gives her time and attention only to the rich, important, and powerful.
Make your choice.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)His support is growing among POC, which is why people like yourself, who are probably in the pay of the HRC campaign, are so desperate to keep spreading the "Bernie thinks fighting racism matters less than fighting economic injustice" smear.
And outside of DU, most POC, from what I've seen, aren't obsessed with getting Bernie to disown Cornel West.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:27 AM - Edit history (1)
There was never going to be any point in which you would ever have been willing to give Bernie a chance, no matter what.
He could have talked about nothing BUT racism and that still wouldn't have been good enough.
Meanwhile, HRC has never been sincere about fighting bigotry, because you can't be sincerely opposed to bigotry if there was ever a time you argued that the party should shut up about it(as HRC did relentlessly throughout the Eighties and Nineties).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And, of course, YOU are the unbiased arbitrator on the issue ... The phase "Splinter in the eye of another" comes to mind.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I would do that even if I had no allegiance in this race.
Bernie never said that people should stop fighting racism and he never said that fighting racism mattered LESS than fighting economic justice.
Don't accuse him of things that are factually untrue.
Is that too much to ask?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)unless they already agree with him ... This poster posted 10s of posts like this TO Black folks ... that were quickly revealed to be little more to his attempt to tell Black folks what is best for us.
Now that we have, largely, stop responding to his soapbox building ... He has built an equally transparent platform to tell Black folks, indirectly, what is best for us.
And the sad, sad thing is ... he thinks he is accomplishing something positive.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And my candidate has spent months learning from the critiques and has totally changed in response. He denounces institutional racism in every speech now(he always fought against it even before that). He makes it explicitly clear in his message that the fight against racism matters just as much as the fight against economic injustice(and, btw, he never ever said or thought that it wasn't as important...not ONCE in his life-when he said social issues were a distraction, he meant social conservatism was a distraction for white workers-NOT that anyone should stop fighting bigotry. Someone who thought fighting bigotry didn't matter wouldn't ever have endorsed Jesse Jackson or Harold Washington).
He can't do what YOU want and stop talking about class entirely, 1SBM, because that means essentially becoming a conservative.
And because it means giving up on actually doing what is needed to end institutional bigotry once and for all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)then you write this:
And because it means giving up on actually doing what is needed to end institutional bigotry once and for all.
That begs the question(s): whom/what have you been reading and what have you learned? As best as I can tell, it hasn't been any of the AA posters to DU (that doesn't already subscribe to economic primary).
At best, this (as an example):
{Response: Huh??? ... (at the front end) he never, ever, said what you admit he said (but change his words to say something different from what he said) ... But more, in what world (outside of DU) can calling something a "distraction" (whether it is the fight for or a fight against something, i.e., social conservatism) be seen as anything BUT a call to re-focus on what is more important (i.e., focus on economic primacy and stop/delay/postpone/temporarily strategically re-deploy resources away from the lesser important bigotry fight?}
Suggests that a more accurate statement by you would be:
Well ... fail!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He meant that social conservative movements were created to distract white workers from fighting for their own interests by getting them to switch to supporting those social conservative movements instead of standing up to their exploiters. He was talking about white workers(and ONLY white workers) being twisted into screwing themselves over through false consciousness. He never meant that anti-racist campaigning was or is a distraction, and he never said POC or whites who want to fight racism should stop fighting racism. That's why his civil rights work(the work you treat as if it was trivial in your pointlessly insulting tagline)and his campaigning for Jesse Jackson and support for Harold Washington matter. That's why his anti-apartheid activism matters.
And Bernie condemns institutional racism in every speech. He wouldn't do that if he really thought we shouldn't be talking about racism. You have this image of Bernie being a rigidly class-determinist CP type from 1935, and it has never been accurate.
Meanwhile, HRC, the candidate you have actually supported the whole time, helped found the DLC and worked to build it for almost decades,a group whose main purpose was to get the whole Democratic Party to stop fighting racism. That was 90% of the reason the DLC existed. And she has NEVER admitted that her campaign to distance the party from the anti-racist fight was inexcusably wrong.
HRC was the one effectively calling the fight against racism a distraction. Bernie has been a committed anti-racist the whole time.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So that we are speaking the same language:
1) I indicated that you "have read what AA people have had to say over and over, and learned from it"
What have you learned?
2) Define "social conservative movements"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)1) Among many other things, that it is crucially important to not even LOOK like you dismiss
the need to fight racism-that you need to SHOW you don't dismiss it, especially when you weren't well-known to POC before you did something like running for president. That there is a need to continually call out bigotry explicitly in the platform in the stump speech(that a lifetime record of antiracist deeds and votes is not enough). That trust is hard to establish and keep on the issue of opposing racism. Valuable lessons.
2)By "social conservative movements", I'm referring to the movements associated with the Religious Right...the anti-abortion movement, the anti-LGBTQ movement, the movement to force kids to take part in group prayer in public schools with the teachers leading the prayers...for a start. I would also put movements against affirmative action and in opposition to BLM(such as the fatuous "All Lives Matter" thing) in that category, as well as the NRA, AND THE DEFENSE OF RACISM BY ANYONE OR ANY INSTITUTION. The anti-racist movement(which I have always supported, even with the national Democratic Party didn't care about it anymore, as it didn't in the Nineties) is NOT a "social conservative movement", and none of us would never ever imply that it was. That would be stupid.
Do those sound like reasonable answers to you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the need to fight racism-that you need to show you don't dismiss it. The need to continually call out bigotry explicitly in the platform in the stump speech(that a lifetime record of antiracist deeds and votes is not enough). That trust is hard to establish and keep on the issue of opposing racism. Valuable lessons.
If "it is crucially important to not even LOOK like you dismiss the need to fight racism-that you need to show you don't dismiss it"; then, why does your every post contain (some variation of): "But, HRC ..." and/or "But economic justice ..."? The two thoughts, i.e., fighting racism, HRC and economic justice are (for Black people, and other, others) are independent thoughts, with the former being dismissed at the "But".
Can you understand that?
Do you agree that working class whites should oppose the "social conservative movement(s), including the anti-racist movement?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)in my phrasing.
I was trying to say, in that last sentence, that the anti-racist movement is NOT "social conservatism" I've rewritten the sentence you quoted, since, in its original form, it somehow accidentally conveyed to you the exact opposite of what I intended to convey).
I want more working-class whites JOIN the anti-racist movement. I want racism dead yesterday. But it isn't as simple as saying "don't be racist". That does need to be said, but just saying that never works.
A big part of talking about "the E J words" words that infuriate you for some reason) is to break the false consciousness that lures working-class whites onto the self-destructive path of blaming POC rather than corporate power for the problems in their lives. It's in the service of crushing white supremacist delusions. There is no way that doing that leads to the fight against racism being back-burnered. If anything, it pushes the anti-racist fight to the front of the line.
To be on the left in this country is to be as committed to fighting racism as you are to fighting greed and stopping war.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)just those "isms" promulgated by the Religious right and exclude racism.
But, anyway, ... Do you agree that working -class whites should fight against heterosexism and anti-choice movements and movements to force prayer in public schools?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But yes, obviously racism is "social conservatism".
Every decent human being should be an anti-racist activist in whatever ways she or he can be.
Including working-class whites.
(BTW, I thought you were saying I had somehow listed the ANTI-racist movement, instead of racism itself, as "social conservatism". Whatever else you think of me, that isn't something I would ever believe, nor would anybody of any color who is part of the left).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)should working-class whites fight against heterosexism and misogyny (i.e., anti-choice) and forced prayer in public schools (i.e., religious discrimination)?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why is it important to list racism, overall, as a movement?(I'll accept that it is).
I'm not sure how that makes a difference from seeing it as a pillar of the existing order, and I'd like to learn.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it's important to list racism, along side all of the other "isms", as they are all part of the "social conservative movements" that you said Bernie meant were "distractions" for working-class whites.
It was you that constructed the artificial "social conservative movement" framing. There is no difference between racism, heterosexism, and misogyny ... if one the pillars of the existing order is a "distraction" to the working-class white ... all are "distractions."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Then again, I've been in various antiwar movements and never thought war(which is just as bad as racism, and is often racist in its results)was a movement. But I accept your terminology and take your point.
And Bernie and all of us who support him are working to get all working-class whites to be part of an anti-racist future. We see the "E J words" as part of that. Not sure why you think that has nothing to do with it. Look at how racial division is used to keep basically ALL working-class folks dirt poor in Mississippi and to keep almost all of the South union-free. Racism and economic inequality are intersectional.
Ending the things that cause working-class whites to be seduced by racism(it isn't an inborn thing with anyone to be racist, it has to be "carefully taught" as Rogers and Hammerstein said) is a big part of that.
You keep trying to paint people who talk about class as being in the way of ending racism, and we aren't. The end of that is crucial to all that we stand for, too.
And of course there is no difference between racism and heterosexism and misogyny.
I'm trying to respond, in my own flawed, human way, in good faith here and it looks as though all you are doing is reasons to validate your distrust. It feels like whatever answer I give to anything you ask here, you are always going to comb through it and find some reason to go all "J'accuse!" on me.
How do we get past that here?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Your argument is disingenuous, or at best, fallacious.
You can't argue, both, that social issues are a distraction for white-class whites AND "there is no difference between racism and heterosexism and misogyny", while acknowledging that each is a pillar of the status quo.
Well ... not and retain intellectual honesty.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Obviously, they shouldn't be. We should all be better to that.
And we all need to call all forms of bigotry out, but it isn't as simple as just saying "bigotry has to end". And it can't be ended just by saying it has to end.
Racism is a movement(so, by your definition, would be all other forms of bigotry), but it is also part of the power structure. And it isn't possible to get rid of it without bringing down all the other pillars of that structure. We need to bring them ALL down.
We're never going to have an oppression-free market economy. Capitalism needs racism. Even those supposedly "enlightened" corporate types that piously denounce racism from on high now and then(and do so only because they pretend it makes them morally superior) don't want racism or any other form of social oppression to ever end.
The 1% all WANT Chris Rock to keep getting busted for DWB. They WANT Oprah and Kanye and Kareem to keep getting treated as potential shoplifters in high-end boutiques. And they want cops to keep murdering black kids.
Because the rich need all of that to keep happening to stay in power.
That is what intersectionalism means. Recognizing ALL the forces in play.
Fighting bigotry in isolation to every other part of the structure can only lead to defeat.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"a distraction to working class whites"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He says those things have been used by the system to keep those working-class whites distracted...not that they should be.
He is trying to get them to see reality by talking about what really harms them.
What he is doing on bringing class into is going to me the most effective way of breaking the false consciousness.
It's going to defeat racism faster than just denouncing racism ever can.
Denunciation of bigotry, by itself, doesn't defeat racism(it helps, but it isn't enough). Neither does just outlawing discrimination(which still needs to be done on a continual level).
If you don't want to support Bernie that's one thing...but what do you have to lose by keeping an open mind about the guy? By at least being willing to admit that it's possible that he gets it? What do you gain for the anti-racist cause by never letting up on him at all?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)To my educated ear ... He doesn't get it. We will disagree on this; but, my ear is different from yours. And my risk is different from yours.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)And because it means giving up on actually doing what is needed to end institutional bigotry once and for all.
First off, few blacks are talking about ignoring the economincs. To say this is the same period where Bernie got slammed for not accepting reparations is silly.
Now, I understand most people think reparations is about THIS: This was from the days where we did not draft comedians to be our actual sources of news. Not the larry wilmore, Jon stewart and Trevor Naoh are not better news sources than CNN, but Dave Chapelle here was not expecting to be a source of news (which might be why he left the celebrity scene)
However, talk to most, and reparations means nothing more or less than admitting that Black people have NEVER had the same chances as whites, and that we need to correct that before we can actually talk as if any Hoartio alger wanna be can get rich. It is admitting this system is rigged, and yes, it will bleed to everyone who has been had, but the blacks were ground zero. Sorry to say, it is not enough to say economics will fix it all, because even though the goal of this nation is to keep the elite rich, racism is based in primordial nature, the same stuff that led our cro magnon ancestors to kill the Neanderthals, even though they actually had bigger brains than we do. The difference is, we can acknowledge the less savory sides of our nature and DO something about them. To quote Captain Kirk, we can come to an agreement not to kill Today.
So, as someone who is of the left of Hillary, someone who gets yelled at here because I defend the idea that just because one finds her policies troubling does not make one sexist, let me say this, despite liking Bernie, much of what has been done in his name is appalling! It becomes the same exact argument you have with your religious relatives: if you have faith, fine, but do not demonize people who do not believe what you do, or get mad when I see the well-documented tools of brainwashing and bullshit and I call you out on it, like I am now! The sad fact as, as much as I want to be with you, I cannot march with the same sort of attack from the left fools who knew they could say what they want because they knew they would never be called on to account for progress.
Yes i will vote for Hillary to keep Ted Cruz out. Yes, I fullt expect, and I hope to be proven wrong, that before the Champagne stops fizzing on election day, that Lloyd Blankfeld and Lynn Rothschild will tell Hillary that she needs to start gutting government programs, including and especially Blankfeld's stated goal of getting rid of social security. I have no doubt, and hope to be proven wrong, that Bibi will remind Hillary that certain folks in Tel Aviv have been waiting for airstrikes on Iran, and have gotten impatient.
And for all the HORROR I expect to see come 2017, it is still nothing compared to what Trump, Cruz, or yes, even little Marco Rubio (who my puerto Rican heart despises, despite the fact he would be the first Hispanic prez) would do. A congress and supremes primed for war? No, not under any circumstances, and frankly, before people to out third party, let me ask you, how many governorship, congress, even mayor-ships of m,id sized towns do you have? Do not play the Ralph Nader blues, because if Jess Ventura can now say "I am the former governor of the great state of Minnesota) that means your excuses are thin. as much as I hate the GOP, they learned one lesson, they knew you had to go top down, from the school board to the dogcathers to the mayors of small towns to higher. You cannot just mug the mic, even though the media PIMPS are smiling at you and telling you you arer doing just fine.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Bernie's ideology is nothing more than hot air.
JudyM
(29,265 posts)I have in the past couple weeks engaged on this issue and read a lot, maybe not enough, though, trying to understand it. I want to understand whatever coded subtleties are grating folks that exceed my ability to understand. I keep being met with "you should know what the problem is." Met with apparent hostility about the fact that I, and many white Bernie supporters who have spent our lives as avowed anti-racists, don't get it.
I read Bernie's speech at Liberty u. It was pointedly anti-racist, and frankly, the high points sounded a lot like MLK speeches I've listened to. What expectation is he not meeting? How was Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry any better at all on racial injustice issues? Or Hillary's history, for that matter? It seems like Bernie's making it a central issue, even if implicit, in the passion of his platform.
Now I am starting to feel like it's not about the content of Bernie's policies, but about the color of his skin. If he were a black man or woman with the same policies, with a similar civil rights career focus, and he were talking about Barak's presidency wins/losses with the same words... maybe it wouldn't be as distasteful. Maybe the responses on this thread are not representative of what the issues actually are, but the offense that people are taking at Bernie seems very out of synch with the essence of his platform, and of his whole career.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)but now he's being discriminated against because he's white.
You're right. You caught us. Black voters don't like white candidates. That's why they never support white candidates and only came out to vote when Barack Obama ran.
Oh, wait a minute . . .
Recursion
(56,582 posts)in the primary. That was the demo his campaign was most worried about, and rightly so: he started out down among African Americans by double digits, and never caught up among Latinos or South Asians.
ecstatic
(32,727 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)asking what people think they want to hear."
Four times you have said "But Bernie addressed their concerns!"
Well, clearly not: you don't get to decide when someone is satisfied with an answer.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Clearly, he believes he does.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)as having the less unfortunate total baggage to have to haul through the general in the fall (though, damn, it's a tough call I wish I didn't have to make), but shit like this is really tempting me to vote Clinton out of spite.
My wife made a really, really good argument against Sanders the other night, talking about how the Indian guy who got paralyzed in Alabama looks like her grandfather, and how she feels as a dark-skinned Indian woman when we visit my family in the South. I'll see if she's up for letting me share it here, though I doubt that it would actually satisfy the OP. (Which, to avoid hypocrisy, I also don't get to decide.)
betsuni
(25,598 posts)I'm tempted to join as well.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)emulatorloo
(44,173 posts)People explain why Bernie isn't resonating with more AA voters, you misrepresent that into something that it isn't.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Just wondering...