I think a strong case can actually be made that everyone is more racist than they think. It really depends on what constitutes racism. To some its as finely defined as "if you notice color, you are racist."

I do agree that a successful progressive revolution must include POC at the forefront in order for POCs to invest in it. Racism is at the core of their lifes' experiences and obviously can overshadow everything else.

But I will review the articles -- bookmarking the post for now.

But that's beside the point. The point is that millennials are far less tolerant and far more ignorant of history than people are often led to believe. In many ways, of course millennials are the most open-minded and 'progressive' subset of society. And that's why it may surprise some to realize that when it comes to a historical and contemporary understanding of race relations in the US, millennials are sorely lacking.

And it would require laying to rest the white hero (come to save the day for POC) complex that many (mostly well-meaning) white folks suffer from.

1: Sanders didn't spend enough time interacting with either POC voters or dealing with POC organizations to get a sense of what they want out of a political leader, or to give the impression that he would be a consistent fighter for their interests.

2: Sanders failed to articulate that while everyone experiences class - class oppression is fairly universal, class oppression is manifested in different ways for different people and pushing those specific, unique experiences off to the side in favor of a one size fits all approach is alienating.

Disgusting.

...I'm not making a "racism accusation." If that's what you got from my post, then you're missing the point.

And I resent that you continue to push that distorted meme, even if it is under the guise of "millennials are less tolerant than some believe".

You're reading things into my post that aren't there.

but any sustainable, comprehensive political revolution must explicitly exclude Clintonites, Third-Wayers and other neoliberal advocates of RW economics and the continuation of the ownership class.

There is no common ground to be had with those that support Clinton for her economic policies...they need to be driven into the sea and slaughtered upon the beachheads.

He's the obvious better choice (just as strong on racial justice, far stronger on economic justice), and that so many black voters seem to think otherwise is baffling. Other POC groups are less heavily on HRC's side.

Every race, gender, class, all together at the forefront.

I now know we'll never be able to participate in politics without being pitted against each other. It pollutes the democratic process and builds enmity that will last long after the election is over. Such a shame.

Political revolutions are democratic. Democracy = "control of a group by a majority of its members"

Minority groups (ethnic, religious, wealth, language... whatever) don't own democratic revolutions. A sustainable comprehensive political revolution will involve a majority of the public, organized by forming a coalition of complementary interests.

The alternative is what we see from the Republicans. A majority aligned by their indifference to minorities.

I actually prefer the term rebellion. Chris Hedges once stated that revolution is about "establishing a new power structure." Rebellion is about "perpetual revolt and the permanent alienation from power." He goes on to say, "it is only in a state of rebellion that we can hold fast to moral imperatives that prevent a descent into tyranny."

Better yet, I prefer the phrase "systemic change." A movement for systemic change will only be successful if those who have been the most disenfranchised have bought into the movement.

Whether you agree or not, many folks don't think Sanders can win in the general election, and there's too much at stake to risk nominating him.

Okay then.

The DLC approach to leveling the franchise is to equalize citizens at the same level; that of pakistani workers.

Like it or not, our system uses the economy as an organizing method. No systemic change is possible without starting with the economy.

The POTUS doesn't create systems. The POTUS operates within existing systems, which are not static. Mass movements are what create new systems.

The marriage rights movement is a good example of bringing about systemic change "without starting with the economy."

Perceptions of persons of color are used to justify economic disparities. So, in that sense, addressing those perceptions and addressing systemic racism (be it policing or housing or hiring or what have you) can help spur economic changes. In other words, it's quite possible that systemic change must originate with sociocultural changes (addressing racism and sexism, addressing materialism/greed and perceptions of what's most important, addressing environmental degradation, and so on).

Changed most of its website in the following week. For most of us we realized what revolution the party is undergoing. It isn't the Sanders campaign. Lets be real, there is a sizable group who don't want this very real revolution happening.

type pf political revolution.

Doesn't matter what age, color, gender, etc. you are. If you live your life forever carrying water for the 1% because you are deathly afraid of changing the status quo of straight white patriarch oligarchy, you're never going change anything but the toilet paper rolls in some rich person's shithouse.

That is not to say racism is not a serious issue that needs to be dealt with on a concerted basis.

But all this crapola that negates the shared interests and common issues that face POC, white, old, young, all gender variations is counterproductive. And in the context of the current primary campaign, it has been cynically exploited.

Recognizing that economic justice and racial/social justice are distinct entities is paramount.

Of course Clinton is deeply flawed. But, right or wrong, Sanders is viewed by many as unelectable, as someone who will get torn to bits in a 1-on-1 general election battle.

Besides, systemic change isn't about an individual office holder. It isn't going to come about through the POTUS. The POTUS doesn't create systems. The POTUS simply operates within systems. Marriage rights didn't come about because of the SCOTUS decision. They came about because of a social movement.

...is not about maintaining division. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Name a single country without economic justice that enjoys social justice? There are none. Why? Because whomever controls the money, controls the levers of power. When an oligarchy controls power the first thing they do is stifle civil rights. They do so via bought politicians.

Even wealthy POC get mistreated in ways *poor* white folks never experience. Economic justice and racial justice are linked *and* distinct.

So I didn't bother reading any further.

If you mean to suggest that economic justice and racial justice are not, in fact, 2 distinct entities, then I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken.

And always have been.

Name a single country with no economic justice that has strong civil rights.

Hint: There are none

When persons of color (including wealthy POC) are mistreated in ways that white people (including poor white people) don't experience, it becomes clear (or *should* become clear) that racial injustice and economic injustice are distinct problems with distinct solutions.

Because power is economic. Without control of power, social justice is not possible.

Yet wealthy POC are mistreated more than poor white folks.

Again, I'm not disagreeing that there's a linkage between all forms of justice. I'm just pointing out that economic justice and racial justice are also distinct. Linked *and* distinct.

Addressing systemic racism/sexism/heterosexism is certainly collective.

The primary tool for curtailing economic justice and guaranteeing inequality is the exploitation of ethnic and religious tensions.

Racism and resentment are the levers that oligarchs pull to forestall class awareness.

2) Racism. We were instructed to hammer home how Bernie supporters were all privileged white students that had no idea how the world worked. We had to tout Hillary's great record with "the blacks" (yes, that's the actual way it was phrased), and generally use racial identity politics to attack Sanders and bolster Hillary as the only unifying figure.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3rncq9/confession_of_hillary_shill_from/

I wonder what is meant by that phrase. It sounds like precisely the kind of phrase that would be used by those I describe at the start of my OP. By well-meaning folks who misguidedly promote "color-blindness."

An easy example here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1831056

I don't think they are racists, but the white young college students that make up such a large swath of Mr. Sanders' support demonstrate a lack experience with and understanding of POC, and seem genuinely confused when their fine intentions are not met with the proper gratitude they believe should be shown.

Mr. Sander's himself has missed opportunities for deeper dialogue where the content did not follow and serve his restricted narrative. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-wrong-say-when-youre-white-you-dont/