White ally here asking for an opinion on the BLM/Sanders protests.
Really, asking for opinions, insights, reflections, or whatever you have to say on the matter. You can't see color on DU unless someone self-identifies, but I'd guess the majority of people in this forum are black Americans. Since I can't see a poster's color, I want to try to hear what some DUers of color think about the protest in Seattle more clearly than sifting through the majority of white voices on DU. I understand your opinions/thoughts/insights are your own, you don't speak for your whole race any more than I speak for mine. But here are my questions; answer what you want, any or all of them.
- Why do you think protesters targeting Sanders and not Clinton or any Republican?
- Is there a central organizing force behind the BLM movement, or are chapters (for lack of a better word) being formed locally and acting independently under the rubric of BLM because it's a nationally recognized phrase/movement? I ask this because I've read more than once that the "real" BLM organizers don't support protesting Sanders, but I can't find any posts from any group claiming to be BLM actually saying this.
- If these are local movements, are they spontaneous, or are they off-shoots of local racial justice organizations? I think what I'm trying to figure out is, are they being lead by seasoned/trained community organizers or by people/young people new to the struggle? I ask this because I've worked as a community organizer and given Sanders' history of working for fair housing and socialist views, it seems like he should be the frontrunner for people seeking more equity, at least economically - which is such a huge component of the social construction of racism in the US.
- In your opinion, are these protests primarily unfocused and born out of anger, or do you think the protesters believe one candidate should be held accountable for solving 500 years of socially constructed racism? My apologies for the word "unfocused" in my question, because I know the anger is real, but as one who studies histories, I understand there are movements born out of reactionary anger from societal repression (the Stonewall riots, and of course, the initial BLM organizing around Trayvon Martin's killing) and those born out of intentional planning (Nat Turner, NAACP, and the Black Panthers). So I guess what I'm asking is, do you think there's a targeted strategy behind the protests?
I ask these questions in all sincerity, as a 50-something white woman who has worked in black communities and is well-versed in US racial history, but who is still really freakin' white and privileged day-to-day. The crux is, I'm trying to wrap my head around the historical and contemporary context of what's happening but am probably too deeply mired in my own racist white baggage to have a clue about what's really happening in black communities.
My intention is to listen, because I know that black voices matter as much as black lives, so unless asked a direct question, I will limit my participation in the rest of this thread.
What are you thoughts on all of this, in light of a second Sanders protest today?
Full disclosure: I am a Sanders supporter, but I listened to him in Denver just a few days after Charlestown and walked away feeling cold because I so desperately wanted him to talk about racism, and particularly, the massacre. I think he's the best candidate because he's the only candidate who seems to have a clue what the real economy is like for millions of Americans, but it was a sore disappointment not to hear him say anything at all about Charlestown. He did talk a bit about police profiling and killing young black men, which was at least some acknowledgement of racial reality. But it didn't go deep enough by a long shot.
to explain this to DU has had her posts hidden and is now on forced time out. Others have faced similar fates.
I think you are likely too late to get anyone to answer you. It's not really possible to get the POV of African American members when they are no longer here. I suggest you search Bravenak's post history for answers to your questions.
I'm a long time member, but I haven't been around much this last six months due to deep changes in my personal life. I appreciate your insight. I had no idea the Bravenak threads today had anything to do with Sanders and/or BLM. I've witnessed so much ugliness over the years I tend to avoid posts about bannings and just stick to news headlines unless its someone I can identify as knowing from pre-2008. But I'll go read what Bravenak has to say.
Hillary couldn't be bothered by BLM at Netroots because she has stayed away from Netroots after being harassed there a few years ago. I don't know why they haven't been targeting Republicans unless they've just given up on them as hopeless causes.
Hillary hasn't been having the same kind of events Bernie has been having. Many people here have been criticizing her for her small fund raising lunches and dinners. Whatever you think of her fundraising, she's not going to run into protestors inside those events. And once she gets involved in larger events, the Secret Service will be there to keep protestors from getting too close.
Bernie should be reaching out to event organizers to see how they're planning on handling disruptions. This is nothing new, and they should have a plan.
Why isn't his campaign reaching out to BLM BEFORE events to discuss their concerns and aligning with them? I don't think Sanders is a racist, but he definitely has a problem with the way he's perceived in addressing their issues. This isn't the first time he's been disrupted and it won't be the last. In my opinion, he and his campaign are fucking this up royally.
PS: I'm also another white liberal here to listen to PoC and get opinions other than the nasty shit bring flung in GD.
Move #1 after the NetRoots protest should have been to reach out to BLM chapters in each city the campaign visits. I don't know what the hell they're thinking.
BLM has a lot in common with occupy that way, and unfortunately a small minority think that trolling Sanders is in some way not only acceptable but helpful to our cause.
I've spend well over a decade convincing overqualified black people to run for office and in win in cities and states where our people thought we could never win. I've seen the difference putting the right black man or woman in the mayor seat makes in changing the way policing works. I've all seen activists like these trolls do their thing over the years and I have yet to see a group that focused on trying to silence others though disruptions ever accomplish anything useful.
The thought is ... I have addressed this sufficiently; but, it is NOT what I want to address as the primary sickness of ALL Americans.
and mine may not be worth much to you (not Black but Arab, nor am I even American).
Sanders, and most of his supporters, believe in the primacy of economic inequality. Conversely, BLM believes that the most pressing issue is racial equality. This is fundamentally a clash of narratives, and it really is a zero-sum game. Sanders is not about to downgrade economic inequality, indeed he owes his campaign to the fact that he is the only candidate to have made it his main pitch. Likewise, BLM are not about to stop focusing on racial inequality.
It doesn't sound like those two objectives are in conflict, but they are. Even if you agree with both there is still the argument of which is to be considered more important or urgent. Ideally it might be possible to agree to give them both equal billing, but that is a delicate balancing act requiring trust and mutual good faith. Good luck finding those anywhere in the American body politic at the moment.
More fundamentally, the politics of class is potentially disruptive for both major parties. It's possible, although not likely, that focusing on economics would attract some of the white working class that have voted Republican a long time. Its even possible that it may find support amongst some Black voters - remember that Roosevelt got 75% of the Black vote in 1936 by appealing to their hip pockets, even though there was not much daylight between him and the Republicans on race.
Hillary Clinton is no threat to anyone's narrative. She is a largely blank, neoliberal canvas upon which one can project an image of one's own pleasing - literally in this campaign season, as she has said so very little of any substance and has refused to take questions from anyone. More importantly, she is likely to be the Democratic nominee, and Sanders is not. This means that one can trounce Sanders and O'Malley until the cows come home, and its still not going to hurt your political prospects whether as an activist or an organiser or whatever. Or to put it another way:-
Since Hillary is the all but inevitable Democratic nominee, confronting two minor white male candidates, demanding they say her name and come up with solutions that address white supremacy, structural racism and the runaway police state is pretty much a foolproof strategy to get noticed, and as Hillary did not attend NetRoots, they got to do it without antagonizing the Clinton camp. Hillary wisely covered her own ass by releasing a tweet that unequivocally said black lives DO matter.
But all in all, the NetRootsNation confrontation wasn't the stirring of black women activists taking their rightful place at the front of the progressive movement, as one breathless tweet called it. It didn't tell us anything we didn't know about O'Malley or Sanders, or about hypocritical Hillary.
It was about flying the #BlackLivesMatter flag to jockey for positions inside the machinery that is the Democratic party and its affiliates.
My black history education focused heavily on the the economic equality issues that POC were working on in the 1950s and '60s, i.e., no one even remembers that MLK was killed while Memphis to march with striking janitors. King wasn't killed when he was talking about racial equality, he was killed when he started talking about economic equality. But we don't live in 1968 any more and my education needs to deepen and advance to the 21st Century.
I especially appreciate the link to The Black Agenda page so I can explore that news resource more fully.
Democrats are always less united after a Democratic presidency than a Republican one (think of the factional brawls between Eugene McCarthy and others in 68, or Nader vs Gore after the Clinton administration). This election will be the same.
These have been dry years for black political activists. Typically, presidents need them to connect to the Black community, and to get out the vote when needed. Obama doesn't need anyone to connect him to the Black community, and most Black people would walk through a blizzard to vote for Obama, so he doesn't need them much on that front either. Apparently one of the Seattle disruptors was so desperate for patronage that she tried promoting herself to the Republicans (yeah, good luck with that). Eight years of irrelevance is enough to make anyone hungry.
As I've pointed out before, BLM tried exactly the same stunt with Obama:-
It ended when some older Black people threatened to kick their arse for heckling Obama. For BLM, getting their arse kicked by Black people is not going to do their activist cred any good. Nor is heckling Republicans. A Republican would simply punch BLM in the face and be immediately rewarded with a 10-point jump in the polls. Consequently, these people are good for friendly fire and precious little else.
A socialist is as much a threat to a black nationalist as to a white nationalist. A black nationalist believes that life is about black vs white, and a white nationalist agrees with him. They might be on opposing sides, but they agree on the narrative. Its a symbiotic relationship, really, and if you spend any time reading black nationalist readings online you soon learn that they have a perverse preference for the white nazi over the white liberal.
What you are presenting is a revisionist interpretation of Dr. King's legacy.
Before accepting the BAR as a reference source ... you might want to poke around a bit, and: 1) judge what Black people think of Ford and his site (generally, not well respected); and, 2) see who his primary base of support is (i.e., white liberals ... that typically use his writings as a foil to something a more widely accepted (among Black folks) Black commentator has written/said.)
ETA: Ask the person you are responding to, shaayecanaan, ... to racially identify.
Of course you are right with regards to striking with black janitors. In my mind, that goes without saying the janitors were black. I learned that piece of history during a labor praxis at a black church while I was in grad school. My former employer (black historian and activist Vincent Harding) wrote the Beyond Vietnam speech, and he's the one who implanted the "Martin was killed while working for economic justice" narrative in my brain. But in these times, I can't afford to be lazy with the message; it serves no one to use imprecise language.
I will also take heed of your warning to proceed with caution on The Black Agenda page. Do you have other sources to recommend to me?
shaayecanaan racially identified as as a Arab and non-American in their first post in this thread.
In terms of precise language ... Dr. King's focus on economic justice was an intra-class struggle, that there be no economic distinction between class members ... Which made that still a matter of race.
I appreciate your being much more eloquent on the subject and helping me hone the lens with which I view my racial education.
I wonder if the language Dr. Harding used was directed at his often white audiences in a way which might make them the most empathetic. I think that was a tactic King and the SCL crowd employed, which has perhaps backfired over the last 50 years by implicitly teaching whites to be colorblind - or at least, to think of themselves as being so, rather than facing their (our, my) own racism.
Just to be clear, I think colorblindness is total BS, since if you don't "see" a person's color, you're not really looking at that person at all. The only thing I know for sure is that I will never, ever know what it's like to be a POC in America. I still strive to get some clue about it. Thanks for entering into dialogue with me.
Get white people to not see color in their interactions with Black people, and, as we see ... it was a flawed strategy because it allowed (s) white Americans to not face their bigotry; but more, the effects of their bigotry.
The simple fact is that both O'Malley and Sanders did poorly in their responses to the BLM activists. That perception was as clear as day. This is in the words of those activists themselves. I'm sure that a lot of people here have questions as to why BLM activists have gone about standing up at rallies, well. I suggest that those people listen to them when they explain themselves. Huffpost Live did an interview with the activists. You can check out the article here:
Watch: HuffPost Live Interview With #BlackLivesMatter Activists Who Took Over Netroots Nation
by Kenrya Rankin Naasel
Tue, Jul 21, 2015 2:05 PM EDT
Over the weekend, #BlackLivesMatter activists interrupted a town hall session at the progressive-minded Netroots Nation convention in Phoenix to address the issues impacting black people in this country and call the names of women who have died in police custody. The session featured presidential hopefuls former Maryland governor Martin OMalley and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, and organizer Tia Oso took the stage to directly ask: What is your agenda going to be to make sure that black lives do matter and that as a leader of this nation? Will you advance a racial justice agenda that will begin to dismantle, not reform not make progress, but begin to dismantle structural racism in this country?
The crowd was less than satisfied with the responses, including OMalleys, Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.
After the event, HuffPost Live interviewed three of the organizers: Tia Oso, an organizer for the Black Alliance for Just immigration; Ashley Yates, a Black Lives Matter activist; and Patrisse Cullors, a co-creator of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and movement.
When asked if the candidates provided the responses she was looking for, Cullors said:
Here's another article by Tia Osa in Mic.com, where she fully clarified her reason why she felt it necessary to confront candidates like Sanders:
I Am the Black Woman Who Interrupted the Netroots Presidential Town Hall, and This Is Why
By Tia Oso July 21, 2015 LIKE MIC ON FACEBOOK:
I am Tia Oso, the black woman who took to the stage and demanded a microphone on July 18 at the Netroots Nation Presidential Town Hall in Phoenix, Arizona. I did this to focus the attention of the nation's largest gathering of progressive leaders and presidential hopefuls on the death of Sandra Bland and other black women killed while in police custody, because the most important and urgent issue of our day is structural violence and systemic racism that is oppressing and killing black women, men and children. This is an emergency.
Sandra Bland and I had a lot in common. We were both black women, active in our communities and the Movement for Black Lives. We both pledged sororities: I'm a Delta, Bland was a member of Sigma Gamma Rho. I have also been harshly confronted by police during "routine" traffic stops and feared for my safety and my life. Reading about Bland, about her life and brutal killing, the accusation of suicide, I felt devastated and enraged. As a human being and a person committed to the cause of justice, I was overwhelmed with grief for Bland, her family and the countless lives taken in what amounts to a genocide of black people who are first criminalized, then brutalized by the United States' justice system.
I was also determined that Bland's death and name would not be ignored nor dismissed. Though the Movement for Black Lives, initiated by young people in impoverished communities across the country, has galvanized a new generation into the grassroots movement to resist police violence, black women are not always the face put forward to rally around. Organizing is often led by women, but our experiences are often minimized. I recognized the opportunity that I had to change this narrative. I, along with the 50 other black organizers attending Netroots Nation 2015, decided we would use the platform of the Presidential Town Hall to demand that former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) #SayHerName and address the crisis of structural racism and their plans to make sure that black lives matter should they be elected president.
Let's not forget that the immediate reaction by black activists to Sanders' response to the protestors was scathing:
Just how black is Bernie Sanders?
By DEXTER THOMAS
Black Twitter was calling Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders black on Sunday, and its not because of his civil rights pedigree. Well, not exactly.
To some politically minded Twitter users, the Bernie Sanders who spoke at Saturdays Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix did not look like the civil rights rabble rouser that he has claimed to be. When protesters began chanting say her name, a reference to black women who have died in police custody, Sanders simply talked over the protesters. When asked to speak about recent events such as the death of Sandra Bland, a young black woman who died in a Texas jail after a traffic stop, he shifted the topic to the economy.
The next morning, Roderick Morrow, a host of the Black Guy Who Tips podcast, started a wildly funny hashtag called #BernieSoBlack.
Since #BernieSoBlack took off, some opposition has formed. Many tweeters are now using the hashtag to argue that the protesters were disrespectful, and to highlight Sanders past accomplishments.
Its ironic, Morrow said of these tweets. They dont appreciate that were asking Bernie to do better.
In the longer wake of Netroots, it was still very clear that Sanders still had perceived deficiencies in the arena of race relations. Here's a rundown:
AUGUST 4, 2015
Bernie Sanders Top Five Race Problems: the Whiteness of Nominal Socialism
by PAUL STREET
Racism as Just an Economic Problem
The nominally socialist Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie sheep dog Sanders, from 95% white Vermont, has, it turns out, has some race problems at least five by my count. The first one, very much on his display in his speech to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s old organization the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) last July 25th, is his economistic tendency to downplay the significance of race and the importance of specifically anti-racist struggle.
Reflecting the influence of the Black Lives Matter movement that has arisen in response to racist police killings, Sanders addressed the SCLC to demonstrate his commitment to racial justice. He came armed with a surplus of terrible statistics on US racial disparities and institutional racism. Sanders seemed eager to wrap himself in the legacy of Dr. King. Bernie (as his liberal; and progressive fans like to call him) trumpeted his own youthful work in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. He quoted King on the disgraceful existence of mass poverty in a land of prosperity and on the obscenity that (as King noted in Memphis, Tennessee just days before his assassination or execution) most of the poor people in our country are working every day and making wages so low they cannot begin to function in the mainstream of the economic life of our nation.
After praising King for understanding that (in Sanders words) it is useless to try to address race without also taking on the larger issue of [economic] inequality Sanders moved into long, fact-filled reflections on wealth and income inequality and corporate plutocracy in contemporary New Gilded Age America. He reiterated his standard campaign denunciations of the Republican Party, the right-wing billionaire Koch brothers, and the Supreme Courts oligarchic Citizens United decision. He called for major federal jobs programs and infrastructure investments, combined with progressive taxation and single-payer health insurance, to fight poverty, create good jobs, and downwardly redistribute wealth and power in the U.S.
Now to answer your questions:
I think for two reasons: They're primarily focusing on Sanders because he's the one doing large public events in the wake of his Netroots fiasco. You also have to note that this is the first disruption of his rallies, happening more than two weeks after Netroot's wake. And what has happened since? More black lives lost and, as I've pointed out in that last article, Sanders is still found wanting. Netroots created a connection between BLM and Sanders, it's an ongoing process.
The second reason has to do with the fact that Hillary hasn't had the same types and amounts of public rallies as Sanders has.
The central organizing force is around Black lives themselves. This movement began to gel in social media and then it took to the streets. Each region of the country has their own locally based concerns. BLM/SEA sent out a press release in the wake of Sanders' event and they highlighted their own concerns:
Here in Detroit, not only does the local movement align themselves with the general one (police brutality, an opposition to white supremacy and the rest), but things like water shutoffs are addressed as well.
These are not your daddy's activists. These are the recently college educated and social media activists. Their objective is to rewrite the book. This is why there's a distinct last of resonance with Sanders and of Democratic politicians with BLM. Check out the HuffPost Live interview.
There's anger, which is righteous. There's also frustration as well, however it's not about holding any one candidate accountable. It's not like that it's O'Malley's or Sanders' fault that America is a white supremacist nation. They are demanding that the candidates outline a plan of action to abolish systemic and institutional white supremacy in this country. Those candidates who have stated that they're allying with the movement. The BLM activists are rightly impatient. As long as more black bodies are lying dead in America's streets every single day, their sense of urgency dictates their direction.
Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2015, 05:30 PM - Edit history (2)
I am particularly appreciative of the time and research you gave to answering each of my questions specifically.
The most enlightening correlation in your response (for me) was your drawing my attention to the local aspect of each BLM chapter beyond (or inclusive of?) the national narratives and headlines. Here in Denver there's a BLM protest today to change the name of a newly emerged neighborhood, situated on the site of our former airport, Stapleton. Stapleton Airport was named after a former Denver mayor, who was also a local KKK leader. Your inclusion of the Seattle press release, your local Detroit issues, and seeing my local BLM's action come up on my facebook feed has crystallized this perspective for me. I am grateful for your ability to help me (and hopefully others) make such a profound contextural connection.
I also so heartened to hear that the emerging leaders are young and educated. I don't see formal education as the be-all and end-all of organizing, but it gives a gravitas to their words that I can leverage in discussions I have with educated white liberals, who are almost always more willing to listen to educated people than non-educated people. It can be a double-edged sword - as with white adoration of Cornell West or Ben Carson - or it can be brandished to shame any suggestion that the organizers are "mere ignorant masses." That the organizers are young also gives me great hope for the future.
Excellent post, very informative. Just when I had decided DU had nothing to offer, I read this. Perhaps it's pointless, perhaps you don't want to deal with the responses that will follow such an OP, but it you can stand to do so, some may read and learn. I know I have.
I saw a few posts on Twitter that amplified the "Why Bernie?" theme too. It's because he's specifically running as the socialist candidate that creates the opportunity for this discussion. Socialism shouldn't be some trickle-down benefit that starts with white people--and white Bernie supporters are wrong to think that socialism is this kind of simplistic mechanism.
Attacking racism would put a lot more progressive ideas in the mix, since Blacks tend to be more progressive than whites, which is shown by numerous polls in the US.
This is a phenomenal response. And the #BLM targeting of Sanders really does appear to be two fold.
1) His absymsal and thoroughly inadequate response at Netroots Nation
2) He's the one having rallies right now.
Really not that hard for anyone to understand.
doing, Mr Scorpio.
"To some politically minded Twitter users, the Bernie Sanders who spoke at Saturdays Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix did not look like the civil rights rabble rouser that he has claimed to be. When protesters began chanting say her name, a reference to black women who have died in police custody, Sanders simply talked over the protesters. When asked to speak about recent events such as the death of Sandra Bland, a young black woman who died in a Texas jail after a traffic stop, he shifted the topic to the economy."
And, his supporters wonder why #BlackLivesMatter supporters are not impressed by him.
Last edited Mon Aug 10, 2015, 04:55 AM - Edit history (5)
Folks have shut down their minds, their compassion over a cause, even if they have to rollover people in order to do that.
I wrote in this group before how DU is completely unable to deal with conversations about race. You know that they can't, as well as every one else in this group. Frankly, as black members, people of color and white members who understand our narrative, I wonder what good I'm doing here.
They've been shutting black voices for quite a while now. No amount explaining to them why their tone-deafness on race matters is problematic, not just for them, but for everyone. No amount of explaining of how systemic and institutional white supremacy works, even in this very forum, will ever get through to them. Their capacity for self-delusion is inexhaustible.
Frankly, the reason that I don't want to repost this is because I really don't have the time to deal with them. My patience is not inexhaustible.
I'm quite sure that some have noticed that I haven't been posting as much as I used to, the reason being that I have no desire to to get into pointless arguments about bullshit during this primary season. I haven't picked a candidate, and at this point, I don't know if I ever will. Around here, the worst reasons to pick candidate are the ones that have been routined offered by their supporters. DU is in full balkanization mode and I'm smart enough to not pick a side. What's not surprising is how easy it is when a place this turns against black people. Which is why I'm glad we have this safe space.
So, I'm always about understanding the truth, that's how I've always been. Here I can tell the truth. Unfortunately, at this time, I doubt whether DU can handle it.
So, I going allow them the comfort of their own delusions, I'm not obligated to remove them from their comfort. If they want to tune out the voices of black people calling out for justice, when there's blood in our streets, and presume that they have the answers when they refuse to even listen to the questions, then it's a matter of time before reality itself makes a correction.
So, I'm going to wait.
over the last few weeks. I've had three posts juried on just today and all from within this forum.
So I'm not sure how much longer this group will be "safe" or how many of us will be left to enjoy it even if it still is.
One of DUs gems when you really get to the nitty gritty of the thing. There are so many of your OPs that go unnoticed when you've put a lot of time into them. I think it's because you wait until things settle down and give it a lot of thought.
You could make some serious waves if you jumped on the drama bandwagon and posted a clickbait title.
are not doing it.
Just glad I ran across it here in the beautiful AA Group.
You don't post enough of your thought provoking pieces, but they are always worth the wait. Your voice has been badly needed. I wish some would leave their cocoon and liberate themselves from their fleeting sense of false comfort. It would be better for all of us. Thanks again.
why #BlackLivesMatters is not targeting the gop instead of Bernie Sanders.
"I'm seeing lots of posts on Facebook and Twitter from other white people in response to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' Seattle rally today, and more specifically, the #?BlackLivesMatter protesters on the scene.
Many "Why protest Bernie Sanders and not, say, a GOP candidate?" posts are going around (or some variation, thereof). And most frustratingly, posts that essentially say, "Fall in line. He's the most progressive candidate in the race!"
You're missing the point.
Why protest Sanders and not Cruz, Huckabee, Trump, or Bush? Think of it this way: If a bully in your school (stand in for GOP candidates in this example) said something rude to you in the hallway, you'd likely go, "Ugh. That's annoying." But if a close friend (stand in for Sanders in this example) just out of nowhere came up and said that same rude comment, you might actually confront them over it. "Why did you say that? That's not cool. I expect better from you."
Point being, you react differently towards the person you think should be on your side because you care about that relationship (or, at very least, have hope for it), and you'd like to see improvement.
That's what's going on here. The "go focus on the 'real enemy'" line gets tossed around a lot, but it's nothing more than a way to derail a conversation.
I am white. I cannot and will never be able to comprehend what it's like to be black in America. I can't say "I know how you feel," because I don't and I can't know. And because of that, it is not my place to weigh in on tactical merits of the BLM protests. What I can do and what other white people should do is to stand in solidarity with those protesters, to raise their voices. What we shouldn't do is complain about tactics.
I 100% support the #BlackLivesMatter movement and protests, and if protesting Bernie Sanders rallies is what they feel they need to do, then I am supportive in that.
We need to ask why Sanders, knowing that this isn't wasn't going away anytime soon, wasn't prepared to respond with an acknowledgment that now, in 2015, the U.S. is largely a white supremacist culture. If he wants to win, he needs to earn the votes. To do that, he needs to respond to the concerns of the BLM protesters, and make the fight to dismantle white supremacy and state-sanctioned murder a core component of his campaign."
#BlackLivesMatter Mahalo for your OP, intheflow, it started some good dialogue.
They've been the faithful voters and foot soldiers in making things work for all groups in America, since they are diverse. Those who left LBJ's 'big tent' did so out of not wanting to share power with these various groups.
It wasn't just some trick by Reagan or Nixon. It had been their attitude all along that some should sit down and be told what to do by them. That they were doing them a favor by helping.
The Democratic Party took weaker positions and tried to ameliorate the wrongs piecemeal, because they know theruthlessness of the oligarchs. Just as the framers of the Constitution saw them upfront and far too close, knowing just how far they were willing to go to maintain control, eventually forcing a civil war to do the right thing.
And they have kept on pressuring all levels of an idealized society that has taken more from POC and the rest of the list for all these centuries. BLM and all these movements are necessary to bring this nation closer to where it needs to be, where it'd be on its best day.
In the 1950s, the Montgomery bus boycott targeted the city buses, not the black cabbies in town. In the 1960s, anti-war protesters targeted the Johnson administration, not Eugene McCarthy. In the 1970s, second wave feminists burned their bras in protest of the Miss America pageant, they didn't protest Betty Friedan's speaking engagements. Today, Greenpeace protests Shell Oil, not the Sierra Club and Occupy Wall Street protests Wall Street, not homeless shelters. So targeting a seeming ally seems counter-intuitive to me as someone who has studied and participated in justice-seeking protests for three decades now.
it would be like trying to go talk to the Klan, oh wait. Trust me if you've never seen a diehard rethug in action it's not an act. Sanders likes to tout a hardcore civil rights CV & this message of being one with POC well it's time for him to put up or shut up. My son's live's are at stake & their college is already paid for so that's a non issue for me.