Several members of my family back home attended the Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle, and my niece took a few pictures.
I have also been chastised for saying I’d be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the election. I find myself in the strange position of being the conservative member of my family. I’m almost afraid to go back to visit next week: have I become the cranky old right-wing uncle who makes a nuisance of himself once a year at family reunions?
Only in comparison, maybe. I’d like to be able to vote for Sanders in the election, but my main concern is keeping those lunatics in the Republican party out of office, so yeah, in the final analysis, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the most likely Democratic candidate in the running.
By the way, on the story about the Black Lives Matter organization shutting down a Sanders rally: good for them. That is exactly what activists need to do to bring focus to issues that are important, and I’m happy to see candidates learning (at least, I hope Sanders is learning — if he isn’t, well then, he isn’t as good a candidate as I’d hoped). Next, let’s see Clinton make race and discrimination an important part of her campaign.
One other thing: the Black Lives Matter group tried to highlight the racist history of Seattle, which is currently a hot topic in the area — there’s a lot of discussion about zoning and racial exclusion. For all the protests that nobody intended to force black people to live in particular areas, growing up near there we all knew that there was effectively a racial structure to the city. Almost all the black folks lived the central district. There was relatively little integration. The suburbs were even worse.
Nevertheless, Durning insisted, “the whole process of dividing the city was strongly colored by the existing racial divisions, covenants, redlining, zoning – that was all intermingled together.” When I again pressed the question of what came from what, he said, more broadly, that “it was soil that the plant grew out of – our zoning grew out of a climate of race and class exclusion.”
The University of Washington has an informative page on racism in Seattle. And don’t even get me started on how people of Japanese ancestry were treated: read David Neiwert’s Strawberry Days: How Internment Destroyed a Japanese American Community
I do love Seattle, and Bernie Sanders, but the first step to making them even better is recognizing the real problems and fixing them.
PZ
One thing is bugging me in the back of my mind. Why have the BLM activists targeted Bernie Sanders to this point? I googled ‘black lives matter activists interrupt republican’ and got nothing but hits referencing the Sanders campaign. Why would the movement go after the one guy who’s most likely to be on their side? Is it because Bernie’s security is lax compared to Clinton’s or any of the clowns on the right? And then I saw this on Patheos:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/?ref_widget=popular&ref_blog=wwjtd&ref_post=huckabees-dna-schedule-is-something-no-scientist-has-ever-heard-of
Surely not in the primary…? It seems your concern is rendered moot if he wins that, and I see no reason to consider it quite as unlikely as it is made out to be by the media pundits running on the conventional wisdom of being the willing stooge for the moneyed establishment.
I’m voting for Sanders in the Minnesota caucus, for sure. If he gets the nomination, I’ll be happy.
Also, agreeing with #1: Sanders is almost certainly the closes ally for any anti-racism campaign; as far as I’m concerned, they are interrupting the wrong person.
Did Sanders not focus on this issue before? What exactly should he learn from these activists?
One thing pointed out – Sanders does not try to keep them out of his campaign and allows them the mic. Anyone else? He’s doing more to give them a voice than anyone else. And he is listening:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
Find something like that on Clinton’s website – if you can get past the pop-ups asking for your email and a donation. Find something like that on any of the Republican sites.
#blacklivesmatter
worth repeating to remind that it is a reminder that blacks exist, not an exclusive statement, that only black lives matter. The point, to reiterate, is that while one may think “alllivesmatter” is inclusive, including black lives; the point is: too many think “all” does not include “black”. That black lives are only technically lives and are inherently worthless.
I saw the tokenGOP try to diminish the hashtag with “not only blacklivesmatter”. Totally going with the GOParanoia ™ that it must mean onlyblacklivesmatter. Which itself reinforces the point of the importance of the hashtag. To prefer the all inclusive version over a specific is a form of diminishing their worth “as just part of the whole”. Also, reminding one of the worth of the black is not an accusation that one hates, just a reminder to not forget that this subset is distinct and a valid part of the whole, that should not just be absorbed enwhole into it and forgotten as a distinct part.
analogy time:
#handsmatter.
Does that say “onlyhandsmatter”? Or that everything else about the body is totally unimportant? To think it does and prefer #bodymatters diminishes the importance of hands to be just an incidental aspect (trivia) of the body. In a time when hands are continually abused, bruised, cut, broken, etc. Publicizing a hashtag #handsmatter is a worthwhile reminder to pay attention to one’s hands and be a little more careful about their treatment of their hands.
Sanders only just came out with that Racial Justice stuff. It wasn’t there before, not when he was previously interrupted on stage, where he refused to engage the protestors. “But he marched with MLK!” was the offended cry of his fanbase. That was… quite a few years ago. BLM wants to know his thoughts now, and he has been rather silent on the matter, until now.
Clinton doesn’t have an official policy on race relations (yet?) but she has been listening and her speeches have changed in response to the movement. She has met several times with activists to speak with them.
O’Malley has a policy, too, but I forget what it is called (have a link at home). But he has a past to overcome.
Also, I would think Sanders would be flattered to be at the center of protestor attention. Think about it: why should they protest candidates who (a) have no chance and (b) are clearly a bad choice of president? Bernie Sanders is popular for many good reasons, and I think it’s important for BLM to find out his official stance with regards to them, specifically. What good is it to vote for a candidate who will, in the end, just put them aside in favour of ‘more important’ things?
And now he has his Racial Justice. It’s a good first step.
What’s the point of protesting any of the Republicans? They’re all horrible anyway, and no few of them are racist. It’s a waste of energy to spend it on those who won’t listen anyway. If Sanders is listening, then the protests are working.
And this is a good thing – good for Sanders, good for BLM. I don’t see why he should complain at all. And I don’t see why his fan base should complain about it, either.
Big Boppa @1:
I doubt it has anything to do with security and everything to do with him possibly being the most reasonable candidate out there. Also, while Bernie is an ally, is he doing enough to speak out on the ongoing systemic racism faced by black USAmericans, or is there more he could be doing?
Holms @4:
As far as you’re concerned, huh? Have you given any thought as to *why* activists are going after Sanders? Perhaps in the eyes of BLM activists, he’s not doing enough. You might think he is, but perhaps you’re not in the position to determine whether or not Bernie Sanders is doing enough for African-Americans.
Also, can activists not go after an ally to try to get them to do more? Do you think Bernie is doing enough to battle systemic racism and cannot do any more or any better?
****
For you both:
1. BLM activists are going after Sanders precisely bc he is a candidate who they are most likely to reach. They aren’t going to reach a Republican.
2. In going after Sanders, BLM activists are also getting in front of his followers, many of whom aren’t as supportive of BLM as they ought to be.
3. Despite the fact that Sanders marched with MLK Jr, that was 50+ years ago. In the here are now we need candidates that put civil rights violations and ongoing systemic racism at the forefront of their campaign. Especially candidates progressive candidates.
Something else to chew on-BLM activists going after Sanders has achieved a victory already:
It’s clear from the above that there is much Bernie Sanders can stand to learn about the plight of African-Americans in this country. Which means he has room to improve. Which is exactly what Black Lives Matter activists *want*.
Tony
You said it better. :)
I think some of the reason for action stems from the fact that Clinton has actually herself attempted to reach out to protestors and the community. It may not be a lot, but it shows a lot more intention than Sanders has shown up until now.
Big Boppa @1
I’ve heard this point a lot over the weekend, and I just don’t get it. Radicals should and always have targeted liberal politicians. That’s not a bad thing.
Just to further address, the “Why are they targeting Bernie?” question. Can you imagine if BLM protesters showed up at a Trump event? What would that accomplish other than people getting arrested? We already know Republicans don’t think black lives matter.
It’s already worked to get Bernie to form some policies and is waking him up. The next step is wake up his ardent supporters who are very good and complaining about poor Bernie being “rudely interrupted”. The BLM movement has shown a bright flashlight on white progressive racism.
Yeah. That they’re interrupting Sanders means a) they think he can be reached, and b) he hasn’t been doing enough so far. Those are good reasons to charge forward.
HappyNat
Much of Bernie’s fan base (and I say this as a fan of his) has basically put this on lurid display. It’s not just the racism either. There’s sexism and just a gross sense of entitlement among his more adamant supporters.
I recently read an NPR article about Sanders supporters from Reddit (big shocker) complaining that NPR spent more time on Hillary. NPR defended themselves, mostly saying that she generates news aside from her candidacy (which… duh), and they come back saying “Any reporting on her is de facto reporting on her campaign! I have numbers from search entries! We don’t care about the race stuff NPR reports on!”
It’s ironic, really. Sanders seems to care foremost about alleviating various types of inequality (race, income, sex, gender, orientation, etc. etc.) and yet his most vocal fans seem to be whiny white males who only care about themselves. To clarify, I’m not criticizing Bernie here, just a big chunk of his fan base.
Of course I’ve given thought to it, don’t be patronising. His entire platform is already aligned with their goals even if he has not made outreach overtures towards BLM, as justice reform and ‘safety net’ type measures are directly beneficial to their cause even without any explicit alliance.
And no, you don’t gain allies by messing up their rally and insulting the audience. And that “white supremacist liberalism” drivel sounds like the sort of crap a conservative ‘libruls are the real racists’ group would come up with… and given that that link makes the case that they do indeed appear to be conservative supporters, I wonder how sincere they really are.
Holms
As mentioned above, it is clearly not enough to just mention justice reform – without specifying what needs reformation; it is not enough to talk about a ‘safety net’ – without explaining if there are any particular groups of people that it will focus on or perhaps institutions that need extra diversity training (or similar); it is not enough to combat poverty if you don’t realize that for some people, it’s not just poverty that’s at issue, but that poverty exacerbates a previously existing condition. It’s not enough to pretend that Sanders is Ze Most Purfect Ally if he’s not addressing black issues specifically – or addressing how his general issues address the concerns of potential black voters.
… Also, if BLM – who are, I would assume, politically savvy, at least a little bit – are still protesting him, even if his platform does align with their goals, perhaps you still need to think a little harder about why that may be. Why do you think that outreach overtures to BLM aren’t necessary? Why do you think that they should just fall into line because hey, his platform says everything will chance!? Why shouldn’t they (BLM) strive for an explicit alliance instead of quietly going along with the implicit one?
In other words, are the concerns of BLM actually being addressed?
Holmes (#16)
White supremacy transcends party lines. It does not mean “white people are all racists”; it means white people have systemic privilege and power in this country (and, indeed, in the world), and will fight tooth and nail to defend it, even if they don’t consciously know that that’s what they’re doing. Lots of Bernie’s fans are enacting white supremacy in their reaction to the BLM movement (“how rude! Those POC should learn their place!”), and lots of them sound the same as white liberals during the civil rights movement: “Wait until we secure a, b, and c, THEN we might deign to consider your problems.” Of course, they never really did. Shit, Holmes, haven’t you ever read “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”?
America is white supremacist: systemically, historically, culturally. These activists are fighting for their right to be heard, and they are doing it in a way that actually makes people hear them. Your link (“Palin! Christians! Aiee!”) is irrelevant; I don’t care how someone identifies, just what their stances are.
I like so much of what Bernie has to say, but I don’t think he is exactly amazing on racism or sexism. He seems to be really focused on the idea that if we can do something about the massive amount of income inequality we have, everything else will fall into place – at least, that’s how he comes across to me. I hope he does listen, and makes more movement in an intersectional direction.
Here’s a link to Shakesville, where Bernie’s recently announced trip to Falwell’s Liberty University is discussed:
http://www.shakesville.com/2015/08/nope.html
I acknowledge all the points made re why they’d target Bernie. That’s what I thought as well until I read that patheos post this morning.
That about summed it up for me, too.
I totally agree. Sadly, this story has exposed a racist underbelly in the progressive community. I have seen “better of two evils” arguments (“Hillary would be worse!”)…I’ve seen “She is no angel!” “arguments” (or rather ad hominem fallacies) in regards to the woman leading the protest…And probably others I can’t think of at this moment. Pretty sad and despicable.
Holms@16
Look at this photo. It’s a young activist ‘messing up’ the Justice for All rally. Source. This isn’t a conspiracy against Sanders. This is activism. Messy, annoying, and passionate activism.
Whoops, misspelled Holms’ name on my #18. My apologies.
Another example, Hillory Clinton was protested by climate activists last month. Activists hold even their preferred candidates feet to their fire.
A couple of worthwhile takes on the subject from black activists:
You’re White and Marched With Dr. King: So What?” (pointing out the problems with criticisms of protest”)
From the other side, Black Lives Matter and The Failure to Build a Movement. (criticizing the protestors for failing to seek tangible gains)
Holms @16:
I wasn’t trying to be patronizing. I really did think you hadn’t considered why they were going after him. The reasons were apparent to me. And I explained what they were. They wanted him to reach out to them and make racial inequality a significant part of his platform. Being aligned is not enough for people who want him to speak out against racial inequality, address systemic racism, and commit to fighting against it. They want him to be better. Why do you have a problem with this? Is it bc you don’t approve of their tactics?
I think you’re wrong. I think this achieved exactly what the activists wanted. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-racial-inequality_55c81153e4b0f1cbf1e56b77
Well, he’s focusing so much on economic inequality and political corruption because those are the most popular issues to most americans right now (both conservative, moderate, and liberal). He’s not just appealing to the left-wing. For social issues, it wouldn’t be as effective for him to focus on that stuff nearly as much.
I think there is something to be said about being laser-focused with the major popular issue of your campaign and hammering that so hard that it is impossible to distract from or ignore.
Obviously activists will try to get their issues focused on as much as they can. That’s basically what an activist is. And trying to get Sanders to take a more specific stance on certain issues that they care about makes a lot of sense. I just doubt that Sanders will ever focus as much on social issues in his campaign, because that’s not what is making him so popular.
Bernie Sanders’ platform on combating racial inequality:
No doubt he added this to his platform because activists targeted him. As well they should. And the fact that he’s included this in his platform and that he’s willing to listen to his critics makes him an even *better* candidate. It says that he’s willing to not only listen to marginalized groups, but he’s willing to do something about their concerns. This is a great thing. Progressives should be happy about this!
No candidate is perfect. There is room for all of them to improve (some less than others). And improve is exactly what Bernie Sanders is doing.
The local paper has an article about this. They portray the events slightly differently. The paper makes it seem more like the protesters and Sanders reached a compromise where the protesters could speak first and then have 4.5 minutes of silence, then Sanders would speak. But then the protesters refused to allow Sanders to speak even after the moment of silence so the rally was cancelled.
I wasn’t there, so I don’t know exactly how it happened. But the newspaper’s version makes it seem like the protesters were more interested in shutting down the rally than in opening a dialogue in good faith, which doesn’t make them look good.
I believe the audience didn’t manage the 4.5 minutes of silence. Perhaps lacking in good faith as well…?
What does “Bow Down Bernie” mean? Sounds vaguely offensive, but I’m not sure what it means.
Eh. It’s not like a Jew would ever have a shot at presidency, anyway.
My wife and I were at the same event! We didn’t get in; we got right up to the door when they closed them. We got to be in the overflow crowd, and they set up speakers to let us listen. Even better, Bernie came out and thanked us for showing up, and said that we, the overflow crowd, were a sign that they needed to book bigger stadiums next time.
Now that’s retail politics.
As for the Black Lives Matter incident at Westlake Center, well, here we are two days later still talking about it. That’s called successful protests. Even better, Bernie has started to say the right things about racial inequality in this country, now that they’ve gotten his attention.
I find this debate fascinating for a number of reasons. First of all, we have PZ applying the Buckley rule in reverse – a laudable event in and of itself. I wish more progressives were this true to their roots.
Then there is the spectre of institutionalised racism in a monolithically progressive city: (http://crosscut.com/2013/05/mossback-where-have-all-conservatives-gone/)
Note: that article comes from the same source PZ used above.
I’ll repeat a point I’ve made here before – why do these sorts of things seem to happen in monolithically progressive cities? Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, New York, Chicago and now Seattle?
Could it be that what “black folk,” as PZ calls them, have been voting against their interests for decades? It certainly seems that way to me.
I hope this is only the beginning:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/10/3689728/after-repeated-protests-bernie-sanders-releases-racial-justice-platform/
Sanders is definitely trying to listen, to reach out to black voters. This is absolutely critical if he is to have any chance of success in the primary election. I hope he does well, both in convincing black voters, and in presenting good policies (and implementing them, should he be elected).
As for Clinton, well, I don’t think she’d be as bad as many liberals worry. As I understand it, political science supports the statement that politicians follow through on their promises (they may not always succeed, but they do seem to try). And Sanders seems to be pushing her to the left. So if she wins, I do think she’ll be closer to Sanders than many people worry.
But you bet your ass I’d rather see Sanders in the white house.
Completely disagree with PZ here. Anyone should feel free to protest at events, but no one should be allowed to burst on stage, stop the speaker from talking and expect the audience to follow them. Completely inappropriate, and I wouldn’t have given them their moment of silence either despite being completely in agreement with their cause. Ditto if they were for LGBT rights, reproductive rights, or anything else I support. This is like an atheist barging into Unitarian Universalist megachurch and displacing the minister. It’s not as if BlackLivesMatter isn’t allowed to organize their own events. I also disagree with Tony that the protestors achieved their goal- I for one am now LESS likely to support any organization they’re involved with, and from the reaction of the crowd there are likely now hundreds of Seattle liberals who will be less sympathetic to anti-racism causes in the future.
Mickey Mortimer
Weren’t much good as allies in the first place, then, were they? If they understand the issue, they can bear with a bit of disruption.
(The point of protest is to disrupt as much as possible – not to organize your own events where these loverly white liberals (never mind Sanders himself) probably wouldn’t ever show their faces. My proof is all the other BLM-organized and other-BLM-supportive-organization-organized events that have been happening not just throughout this year, but for a few years now – sure, Sanders marched with MLK way back in the ’60s, but has he marched with Deray yet? :P)
Shorter Mickey Mortimer: black people (and anyone who is oppressed) should shut up and know their place. Being loud invalidates your issues. :P
Also, Tom Weiss:
Are they really, really, really that monolithic? If you look at them as a whole, sure, but internally, how segregated are they? And perhaps it’s less that black people have been voting against their interests as that no one has been adequately representing their interests.
If Sanders listens, he has a shot.
Mickey @37 is right. Why should we fight against a racist justice system or racist housing system if black people are going to be all uppity about it?
Yup. Nothing worse than uppity black people trying to get some attention after being ignored for 250 years. Don’t they know just being in the front part of the bus is a privilege? How dare they interrupt one of the drivers! How are the drivers expected to continue on the path of the status quo if some uppity black woman keeps jostling their elbow?
Yup. I was all for that more equality and less racism stuff, but, now that a couple of people have been rude about asking for it, I say we withdraw our support until they learn how to ask nicely for their civil rights.
Kengi
I believe they’ve been ignored for something like 400 years by now. You’d think they’d learn! [/heavy snark]
And a lot of us have to disagree with Mickey. Protest, especially civil disobedience, is exactly that: Civil. Disobedience. It’s intended to bring attention to a cause. The protester expects to pay a (possibly high) civil price for his actions, but if the conversation persists and change occurs, the protester has won. In the 80s, I was arrested to protesting the Trident missile launches; the charge was trespassing, and ultimately they were dismissed. But rushing the fence had a purpose, to get the press’s attention, and to make it clear how angry we were at the nuclearization of the seas.
So the BLM action worked. The kyriarchy, exemplified by your complaint, has shifted.
(True story: a few months later I was inside the fence, giving the raspberry to some of my very same fellow protestors. They were upset that the Galileo mission had a radionucleotide generator on board and were protesting “the nuclearization of space.” I have no problem with the peaceful use of physics; they apparently did.)
Mickey Mortimer @37
rq@38
For what it’s worth, there was a Black Lives Matter rally in Seattle yesterday, and plenty of while liberals showed their face. Interestingly,
@38 rq
You can genuinely support an end to police brutality and racism, and also look at a couple of screaming protesters jumping up and down shouting “we are being reasonable!” and think maybe BLM isn’t a movement that’s serious about those causes.
Seriously, do any of you think animal rights are aided one whit by PETA? Being an attention-seeking screamer doesn’t make you an activist.
@rq
I’m a real ‘merican when it comes to history. The world was created 6000 years ago and populated by proto-Christians. Jesus was persecuted 2000 years ago (just like Christians are today). ‘merica was created 250 years ago by Real Christians. And capitalism was created 35 years ago by St Ronald. That’s everything anyone needs to know about history.
Sanders is by far the most supportive candidate when it comes to race relations in this country. The fact that he also talks about income, economics, etc does not mean he is ignoring race relations or not talking enough about it. Concerning his speech that he never got to give, Sanders said that race and the use of force by police were on his list of topics to be covered. No matter, Sanders quietly stood by and allowed the protestors to say their bit and hold a moment of silence. Despite this polite gesture, they still maligned Sanders as being “useless or harmful” and a “phoney liberal” for participating in the political system (What would they have preferred he do? Mail bombs?) until they were booed by the audience and ushered away. Sanders came away looking respectable and professional while the protestors came across looking like idiots only interested in getting their 15 minutes of fame. I do not need loud children to speak for me. And I certainly don’t want to associate with self-centered clowns who disrespect one of the few politicians who understands the racial situation in this country and has worked to better it.
@44 zibble
And yet they managed to start a conversation that was being previously ignored. Isn’t that part of activism?
Being ignored? You can’t possibly be serious. This issue has been front and center in American politics for the past year. True, all other candidates (Hillary in particular) have gone out of their way to give lip service to it but Sanders is a far exception. His record of taking on civil rights issues stretches back decades and has been praised by every civil rights organization in the country. He was about to speak about it THAT VERY DAY had he actually been allowed to open his mouth. And I would love very much for you to explain exactly how these loudmouths started any sort of conversation since all talk is about how idiotic they looked.
My experience over the pond was some odd twitter exchanges saying Sanders didn’t give a shit about BLM. And then this in a tweet.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
Yes! My mind read through the points with MLK diction. From the thread I gather this took some effort. But from over here it seems like he’s accepted all the right things. Now let’s have a few more rallies where he incorporates this into speeches. Not just a nod to the left, a nod to the existance of systemic inequality, but a strong line, a strong position that accepts and fights for all that is important here!
Good luck in 2016 USA.
@treefrogdundee, Sanders campaign certainly has made changes after these and other activists spoke out.
@47 Kengi
But they didn’t start a conversation. On all the blogs I’ve read talking about this incident, not one, including here, has even quoted the protestors or even talked about what their actual grievance with Sanders is. All I see among their supporters are people going through absurd mental gymnastics to make broad assumptions about what the point of this display even was. The only places it “started” a conversation were blogs like these that were already talking about these issues; literally everywhere else the conversation is “Jesus Christ, who are these morons?” and “what was the fucking point of that?”
zibble @44:
So black people have to protest the “correct” way to get the people in power to stand up and take notice. Pray tell, what way is that, how do you know it will be effective, and how do you know it hasn’t been tried before?
@zibble
Well then, I guess we need to do more instead of less.
But you are wrong. I’ve seen this conversation starting in places it hasn’t happened before. I see it in blogs about feminism where race had never been mentioned before. I see it in a lot of progressive places that were happy to ignore race before. They may be difficult conversations, but at least they are starting.
Tony @52: Exactly. This is a matter of choosing to combat privilege. If you have a choice in the matter, you have privilege.
The protesters on Saturday don’t have a choice.
I want to know more about what happens next before passing judgement on any of the parties involved.
If Bernie Sanders doesn’t start picking up Black Lives Matter talking points (or taking equivalent action) then no, he is not acting in good faith and deserves to be given the boot. (I strongly suspect that he will, given his history, but there is limit to how often one can be disappointed by politicians. Still, Sanders has a pretty good track record of being on the right side of issues and acting in good faith.) Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, already deserves to be given the boot on any number of grounds, so basically if we’re giving Sanders the boot then we might as well all write off the Democratic Party in 2016 and get started helping the Greens, ’cause Sanders is basically the Democrats’ Last Stand for relevance to anyone who isn’t in the 1%.
If Bernie Sanders’ audience truly isn’t showing support for Black Lives Matter, then yeah, they’re a bunch of despicable closet racists. (And seriously how can anyone with two functioning brain cells not support Black Lives Matter at least to the point of agreeing with them? Anyone who isn’t at least willing to admit that the premise has every justification at this point is scary evil.) On the other hand, qwints #43 links to suggest that the support from pasty white liberals in the area isn’t just limited to nodding.
And, last but not least, if the Black Lives Matter protestors keep disrupting Sanders events once they have what they want from Sanders, then they aren’t acting in good faith and deserve to be ignored at events. The combination of the revealed background of these particular disruptors as right-wing religious nuts and their failure to attend their own event, both pointed out above, suggest strongly that the particular protestors who were at the Sanders rally were not acting in good faith, and probably won’t be in the future, either. In fact, it would not be at all surprising, now that I think of it, to discover that this disruption was a deliberate attempt to discredit both Bernie Sanders (“He’s really a racist! Black people hate him! Look at this video of a black person telling him off!”) and Black Lives Matter (“Look at how unreasonable they are, disrupting events for their own allies! You shouldn’t listen to them!”).
@#42, elfsternberg:
Indeed; civil disobedience is justified as a means to an end — and if the Black Lives Matter activists start supporting candidates who are open to working with them, which at this point seems to be Sanders and nobody else in either of the big two parties, then great. But if it turns out that this disruption continues even after they get what they want, then I think it’s acceptable to assume that this isn’t justified, and may not even be civil disobedience. qwints’ mention above that the disrupters aren’t doing anything else is… worrisome.
@#39, rq
Chicago certainly isn’t. The city and suburbs have always been segregated on the small scale — sure, Chicago is ethnically mixed as a whole, but there are definite “black neighborhoods” and “white neighborhoods”. I am told that all legislative attempts to ameliorate the problem have been deliberately sidestepped by a sort of advanced redlining — not just the dictionary definition kind, but filtering by real estate agents. If you are white and looking for a house in the Chicago area, you will be shown certain neighborhoods. If you are black and looking for a house in the Chicago area, and go to the same realtor, you will be shown certain other neighborhoods. (And if you’re latino? You get your own third set of neighborhoods.) Doesn’t matter what your finances are like — poor white people will generally not be directed to poor black neighborhoods. And, my informant says, it’s very difficult to collect legally admissible evidence that this is being done on purpose, even though no other explanation is really plausible. A while back there was a census map which let you look at diversity graphically, and most (not quite all) of Chicago is a sort of checkboard, ethnically. Only a few areas, including a few suburbs, are integrated to a meaningful extent.
IIRC, Chicago has the highest difference between integration on the local level and citywide diversity of any American city, but nearly all large American cities have this problem to some extent or another.
In which case they’re like every other group in America. If Americans actually voted their own interests, the Green Party would be about the size of the current Democratic Party, the Democrats and the Republicans would long since have died out as organizations, the Libertarians would get the votes of the richest 1%, and there would have to be some new parties invented for everyone else. That wouldn’t be a bad thing, actually — at least we’d stop seeing throw-the-base-under-the-bus-and-make-excuses-when-you-get-called-on-it Democrats like… well, essentially all of them.
@52 Tony
Oh for fuck’s sake, YES, there’s a “wrong” way to protest. Are you fucking kidding me? There are a million wrong ways to protest. The fact that you can’t even answer the simple question “what did the protesters actually WANT?” and you instead have to respond with simple-minded dismissive nonsense pretty much scores the point that this was one of the wrong ways to go about it.
You also make a pretty large leap in logic calling Sanders “the people in power”.
Interesting how some folks think that blacks must protest only in certain ways showing their subservience. As MLK said in his letter from Birmingham jail, the real enemy of progress isn’t the KKK, but rather those who appear to be sympathetic, but at the end of the day keep saying “be civil, wait, now isn’t the right time, your protests hurt your cause”.
Thank you for showing your true colors.
elsternberg @54:
(snark mode enabled)
Pish-posh. Of course they had a choice. They could get up in Sanders’ face and express their wishes:
or they can sit patiently and wait their turn to be recognized before they speak politely and respectfully about their desire for serious attempts to address systemic racism. Because *that* has been so effective up til now.
So clearly they had a choice: continue with the status quo or disrupt the quo so it ain’t the status any more.
(end snark mode)
****
Related to the above:
Bernie Sanders adds young black woman as new campaign press manager:
People felt he wasn’t addressing the needs of the black community vis a vis racial inequality. He met with Symone and she managed to convince him of some ways he could improve his campaign. She helped him craft the racial inequality portion of his platform. Clearly even *he* recognized that he could do more.
zibble @ 56
Bernie Sanders has held office in congress since 1990. and he was mayor of Burlington for 8 years before that. He may not represent mainstream democratic politics, but he is literally ‘in power.’
@54 elfsternburg
ime, the kinds of people who engage in this sort of attention-seeking screamy pseudoactivism aren’t the downtrodden, they’re thoroughly middle class spoiled kids who don’t really care so much about changing the world as just showing the world they’re not actually as privileged as they actually are.
zibble @56:
Clearly you think the actions of the activists this past weeked were wrong. In what way were they wrong, how do you know that, and what could they have done to achieve their goals better?
Clearly you think there’s a better way to achieve their goals. Remember that we’re not talking about addressing a trivial matter. We’re talking about addressing matters that have been killing black folks for a very long time. In the face of *that*, politeness can fucking take a hike.
Yes, and these activists chose one way. A way that many people are uncomfortable with. I’m fine with discomfort.
I do in my #58:
What’s simple minded about recognizing that many people are not satisfied with the degree to which Bernie Sanders was speaking out about issues of systemic racism? FFS, even he has recognized the need to address the matter in a better way. Hence the platform addressing systemic racism that Symone Sanders helped him created following the interruption at his first rally.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it’s a recognition that Sanders has a lot of social power at the moment and with that power, can reach a lot of people.
zibble @60:
Then you really haven’t done much research into what Black Lives Matter activists seek to achieve. This is about addressing shit that is killing black folks. Shit that is tearing families apart. That some people feel that politeness can go fuck itself speaks to that fact. You’re coming across as someone that only approves of the actions of activists if they’re done in the way your approve, yet you present no evidence that your way is effective. Nor are you addressing the fact that people are dying and many people have fucking had it.
@57 Nerd of Redhead
In the name of civility, in my previous post, I refrained from asking if anyone actually needed me to list some of the wrong ways of protesting, or if I could just assume you weren’t complete fucking morons.
Are you actually fucking saying there is literally NO wrong way to protest this issue? Not bombing innocents, not Eldridge Cleaver raping women, not just getting onstage and mooning the audience? It’s all fucking good, no matter how halfwitted, no matter the collateral damage, because we support the same cause?
Of course you’re not fucking saying that, so don’t insult my intelligence as well as yours with this simple-minded tribalistic crap.
@zibble, grabbing a microphone and/or yelling at a politician is as acceptable as it gets in the realms of American protest. All kinds of protesters do it to all kinds of politicians. At worst, one could argue that this was a tactical error made by individuals who falsely claimed to represent a movement they’re not really connected to. That doesn’t deserve the level of racist vitriol this has produced from purportedly enlightened progressives.
I understand and respect the arguments in favor of the BLM taking over the Sanders event. At the same time, the cold hard reality is that you don’t win national elections without the help of moderates, and tactics like this virtually guarantee that Sanders’ already daunting task of attracting moderate voters is now even harder. And I say that as someone who is sympathetic to BLM and who also would be thrilled if Sanders actually did win the election. Moderates want a candidate who looks like he or she can keep control of situations, and what happened in Seattle did not leave anyone with the impression that Sanders can keep control of situations.
In 1968, when the hippies took over the Democratic National Convention, it made their base feel really good, but it also handed the election to Richard Nixon.
And when everything is said and done, politics is about winning, more than about being right. My heart is with the Seattle BLM prostesters; my head hopes there won’t be any repeat performances. It doesn’t matter how right or just your cause, if you can’t win an election then it is all for naught.
@61 Tony
What’s simple-minded is saying that anyone who takes issue with this protest obviously just wants blacks to prostrate themselves and beg for rights from glorious white saviors. That you can’t just disagree with the efficacy of a protest without being some kind of hideous racist.
This is hardly the only wrong thing they did, but they should have let him actually speak after they’d had their say. They could have actually let Sanders do the thing you claim they wanted from him – have a mainstream politician voice support for the BLM movement. But despite the fact that you assume (and ASSUME is very much the key word) that this is what they wanted, they actively prevented it from happening. So instead of having an actual conversation about the very real need to address racism and police brutality, the conversation everywhere is about how weak Sanders looked getting bullied by a couple of idiot protestors, screaming with the zeal of baby’s first protest.
As far as I’m aware, this was NOT an action condoned or supported by the broad BLM movement, but the action of a couple of individuals taking advantage of BLM’s leaderless structure.
Tony @62
It’s becoming clear that the two protestors aren’t directly affiliated with the broader Black Lives Matter movement. These two protesters are seeking the abolition of police and prisons, which has not been a stated goal of the broader movement.
If it is non-violent, as this was, NO! Your concern is noted, but will not be acted upon due to how you reacted. Don’t like it? Don’t react to the attitude with the same attitude.
I see now that my white privilege needs examination in a similar way that I examined my cis-hetro male privilege.
What on earth makes you think that was not already in the works? A ‘detailed plan’ suggests that that was already on the agenda already, and had been so for a while. It was probably weeks in the drafting, and the same goes for your news item above at #9, with the hiring of that press secretary. Note that the article states that the hiring interviews had taken several weeks.
And your 29, come on Tony. He added alllll that to his platform in response to the stage invasion, in the space of a day? And none of it was thought of or planned until that encounter…? Hell no. His voting record of a decade or so in the senate is consistent with his Selma march participation, ancient though that may be.
I can only hope it works out well.
The crowd only got rowdy after the activists got nasty (from what I have heard anyway), so I don’t see how.
@64 qwintz
That’s exactly how I would describe it.
Where I quibble is in your describing what happened as them just heckling him. He is a sympathetic voice to black rights, and they shut down his whole speech. That doesn’t just do fuck-all for black rights, it shuts down all the other important issues Bernie is bringing to the campaign.
Where I’m sympathetic, is in the fact that Democrats clearly take black votes for granted. I can understand how frustrating that is, especially if every time you complain, your white liberal allies essentially tell you to shut up about it. There is a very long history of democrats ignoring the political concerns of their strongest base, right up to President Obama – so then why the fuck aren’t they screaming at Obama? These kinds of aggressive protests are justified when they represent frustration with inaction – that’s why you should aim them at people who are actually in charge. You scream at someone over their record, ffs, not over what you assume their politics would be a year from now.
@68 Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Really? So should they interrupt all speeches and rallies? If the ACLU comes by, they should literally prevent them from speaking and take the stage from them? Should they interrupt moviegoers? Should they interrupt non-relevant judicial proceedings? Should they interrupt weddings and funerals?
Just trying to get a sense of your position.
I find it interesting the mention that Sanders needs to ‘win votes’ or perhaps ‘win moderate votes’… Are you forgetting that, if he does pick up BLM talking points, etc., that he might win the BLACK vote? Seriously, he may have lost SOME of ONE demographic, but it’s entirely possible he could pick up SOME (MORE?) of ANOTHER demographic.
Also, activists – even the Black Lives Movement itself! – are not monolith, and I wouldn’t expect activists organizing their own action to attend an action the previous evening. It would be nice, however, for someone so in touch with combatting racism as Sanders is said to be, to attend at least ONE BlackLivessMatter event. I dunno, has he done so? And it’s extremely convenient that it was just THIS speech, where he was 100% going to mention police brutality and racism, etc., is the one that nobody got to hear… maybe it did have mention of police brutality and racism, maybe it was an official announcement to unveil his Racial Justice page – and if it was, I think Sanders’ timing is waaaay off. Should have released these things much sooner after the previous interrupt protest.
There’s only so much time people are willing to spend waiting.
Anyway.
What if the protest group was from the other side? What if it was a Anti-Choice group (or some sort of horrible Michael-Brown-Deserved-It group) who prevented Bernie Sanders from speaking? Would you only disapprove of their message and not their tactics?
rq@73
It would have been consistent with his previous speeches, which were amended to more explicitly address racism and police violence after the Netroots Nation protests.
I’m another of the 28,000. And I am also someone who would grit my teeth and vote for Hilary over any Republican clown candidate. But I’m starting to believe that maybe, just maybe, I won’t have to. Bernie’s supporters, from what I can see, are largely Barack’s supporters who still don’t trust HC and are looking for the guy they were hoping Obama would be. And the Republicans haven’t got anybody now who is even as believable as their pathetic McCain and Romney offerings. It’s not impossible for Bernie to get past Hilary the same way Obama did, and it’s not impossible for him to beat the losers the other side has to offer, just like Obama did.
@68 Nerd of Redhead
So you’re saying, even though my response was non-violent, its needless, poorly directed aggression made it counterproductive?
Please tell me you’re being *intentionally* ironic.
No matter how you want to phrase it, it breaks down to this:
Bernie Sanders has a record on civil rights that is remarkable. He has talked about it when nobody else wanted to, he has put his feet on the ground rather than just preen on TV, and he has been honored for his role by the civil rights community again and again. To claim that he was in any way not a “true” civil rights progressive (as those idiots did) or that this made him talk about something he had previous not (as many commenters here are) shows pure ignorance of the man and his life. Bernie Sanders has always made civil rights a cornerstone of his political life and this campaign hasn’t been any different. Him speaking out after this event was no different from anything he has done in the past.
The protestors gave no suggestions for what could or should be done to accomplish their goal. Rather, one of their grievances was that Sanders works within the system. Since Sanders has a history which includes nonviolent civil disobedience, by default any alternative that would suit those idiots would be anarchy and violence. So supporting them equals a brilliant bit of hypocrisy from people who claim to oppose violence, militarism, etc.
You do not attack your friends, it is that simple. If you disagree with someone who for all intents and purposes is an ally, you try to change their mind in a polite and civil fashion. That is what adults do. Screaming like spoiled brats alienates others.
I’ve lived most of my young life in a part of this country that still suffers the most from the racial situation. I recognize problems when I see them. But I also recognize self-serving publicity hounds whose only goal is feeding their own egos. I don’t want any “help” from them. I do not want any help from those who attack and insult friends. Nor do I want it from anyone whose “solutions” involve bombs and burning.
NOPE. Your inability to understand you were concern trolling was the problem. And you still are. And in my experience, those who concern troll tend not to want to listen to the message at all, or want anybody else to listen to it, and make how the message is delivered their way to avoid having to deal with real problems the messages bring out. As MLK said.
treefrogdundee @78
Oh really Bernie has worked for civil rights since the 60s? Next you will tell me he marched with MLK!
Really good on him for his past deeds, he wasn’t an asshole in the 60s but that doesn’t mean anything now. BLM is a new civil rights movement. BLM is targeting Bernie because of his history of being on the right side of issues. Many were disappointed he didn’t seem aware of the seriousness of the BLM.
How well has a “polite and civil fashion” worked for oppressed groups in the past? Civility plays in to the hands of the people in power, it’s how the status quo stays the status quo. Calling people who protest spoiled brats certainly doesn’t sound like the language of an ally.
I’m sorry? He was on the right side of issues so now it sounds like a good idea to insult him, accuse him of being “useless”, and say the only right way to go about this is through violence? I seriously hope you’re joking. And as far as “polite and civil” go, I was referring to how one treats ALLIES, not those who have being behind the oppression. If you cannot make that distinction then I really can’t help you.
P.S. Oh, and Sanders was involved in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. Maybe you should spend a few seconds on Wikipedia?
In what sense are you using the word ‘should’?
If you mean ethically, then any public event is fair game. (so no private functions like weddings and funerals)
If you mean tactically, then that has to be determined on a case by case basis.
@83 Amphiox
Either. Although, I don’t see why private events would not be fair game ethically speaking. You’re still being nonviolent per Nerd of Redhead @68.
It being determined on a “case-by-case basis” is not what I’m seeing from some people’s arguments here. That is substantive disagreement with Tony and Nerd of Redhead, as both are saying that anything goes and there is no wrong way to do it. In fact, they’re also implying anyone who disagrees with that notion is minimizing the issues of the BLM movement.
Now, think a little bit. If Bernie Sanders, on the anniversary of the death of Michael Brown at the hands of the Ferguson police, started his speech with “this is the anniversary of the death of an unarmed black man at the hands of paranoid police”, and then presented his social justice package immediately thereafter, would there have even been a need for an interruption? BS blew it, and blew it badly. He rectified the situation with his later proposals. But he could have avoided the brouhaha by acknowledging it up front. Not a very astute political move, ignoring the date, when it is a great place to propose his solutions.
Just to clarify: you’re suggesting that Bernie is at fault because he didn’t mention the date early enough in his speech? Even when they wouldn’t even let him voice his agreement with them once he was interrupted?
I noticed that you kind of dodged my actual question, which was about your stance that there is no wrong way to do nonviolent activism. And anyone suggesting such is essentially concern trolling.
Hypothetically, if Sanders HAD mentioned the date immediately, and BLM did the exact same thing anyway, you would be against it? Because it’s still nonviolent. I’m a bit confused now what your position actually is.
Sanders isn’t a liberal. He’s a socialist.
The fact that a socialist candidate actually kinda maybe has a (possibly decent?) shot at the nomination for POTUS is exciting as hell.
Yes, because it would have been redundant, unnecessary, and overly confrontational.
But he didn’t.
zibble @63:
I suppose I was assuming you’ve read this blog before and are familiar with commenters and that as a whole, this is a community that deplores the use of violence to achieve progressive goals. My apologies. When I refer to different ways of protesting, I’m referring to nonviolent protests. Violent protests are not the type of protest I think are going to elicit the responses protesters are seeking. But we’re not talking about violent protests. We’re talking about two black activists being rude to a white guy. I notice a lot of Sanders’ followers having a problem with the actions of those women, but I wonder, does he have such a problem? He seems to have learned from the protesters who interrupted him last month. Perhaps the same applies to the events of this past weekend.
@66:
Where have I said that?
Where have I said that?
You’re wrong:
That’s from Patrice Cullors one of the three women who created the Black Lives Matter movement.
@77:
Needless? Poorly directed? Counterproductive? Not in the slightest. This was calculated. It was strategic:
****
Homs @70:
I’ll concede that the actions of the protesters over the weekend did not lead to the addition of a racial inequality component to Sanders’ platform. However, his meeting with Symone and her help in creating that platform occurred *after* the first interruption of one of his rallies last month. She even says that she discussed with him some of the issues BLM activists have with him.
doublereed @84:
I guess I’ve been unclear here: I do not believe anything goes. But I don’t think interrupting the white guy on the podium to talk about systemic racism is the pearl-clutchingly bad thing so many other progressives do.
@89 Nerd of Redhead
You do realize that’s exactly what people who are disagreeing with you are saying? Why is legitimate when you say it, but illegitimate and should be dismissed as concern trolling when they say that?
Frankly, I could see the odd victim-blaming-Bernie-angle with that as well. “He riled up the crowd with racial issue right off the bat. BS blew it, and blew it badly. Not a very astute political move, talking about that so quickly, when it is a great place to propose his solutions.” Makes about as much sense.
In fact, calling activists for BLM “redundant, unnecessary, and overly confrontational” is pretty ridiculous frankly. Who are you to say that?
This is so frustrating, bc people are basically arguing respectability politics here. “Black people, you need to do this activism thing the right way. If you don’t, you’ve no one to blame but yourself if people don’t listen. Don’t take the mike from the white guy. Don’t be rude. Wait your turn”.
Because none of *that* has been tried before. Oh wait. It has. And people are still being brutalized. They’re still losing their homes. They’re still being imprisoned. They’re still being killed. Families are still being devastated. And progressives want black people to play nice?! No. Fuck that. Maybe it’s time to be rude. Maybe it’s time to be disruptive.
Inside the boundaries of the law in case anyone doubts what I’m advocating.
I can’t wait for to have to go through this bullshit for gay rights.
NOPE, show me with evidence, where BS addressed the problem in his speech prior to the interruption.
He had a perfect chance to outline his agenda prior to any interruption, making it look bad.. He didn’t use it. That is what folks like you don’t acknowledge.
Treefrogdundee @81
So what one did 50 years ago is good enough for you? Things have changed, the fight is different, but black people are being killed for no reason. We aren’t fighting for integrated schools or shared drinking fountains anymore. As people have said he is targeted by BLM because he was progressive on racial issues, people want to to stay progressive. If people don’t stand up for police brutality against POC are they really allies?
and @82
Ummm yeah, I know he marched with MLK. I know because every time anyone criticizes Bernie on race it’s the first thing his supporters bring up. As I said that’s fucking great, but what about now. Saying he marched with MLK is as tiring as saying BLM interrupting his speech is going to cost BLM allies. If people being rude to a white politician changes your position on black people being killed by the state, well fuck off.
@94 Nerd of Redhead
I was still speaking in the hypothetical situation where he does address it. In that instance, suddenly you would call it “redundant, unnecessary, and overly confrontational” at which point I will throw all your words back at you.
My point is that dismissing people who disagree with you as concern trolling like that is basically a fully general counterargument.
I will raise the other question I posed to you. What if the group wasn’t BLM but a racist group or an anti-choice group or something? What if they took mic and prevented Bernie from speaking instead? Would you only disagree with their politics or would you also disagree with their tactics?
doublereed @96:
This other group would also need to be a marginalized group that has been trying to have their voice heard for a very fucking long time, yet continually denied. They would need to be a group that has been fighting and fighting to have their issues addressed-issues that lead to them being discriminated and oppressed against…issues that lead to them facing disproportionate levels of violence from state-sanctioned law enforcement agencies, and systemic abuse that targets them throughout their lives. Did you have a group in mind that would be properly analogous?
We’re not just talking about any group taking the mic and talking over a politician. We’re talking about a group of people who continue to deal with some very awful shit in this country.
Fuckwitted idjit. If Bernie had addressed their concerns prior to any interruption, those taking the mike are wrong. Simple. Now, show me with evidence that Bernie addressed the anniversary of Michael Brown’s death in a proactive way PRIOR to the interruption. If that wasn’t done, BERNIE IS AT FAULT. This isn’t difficult, or philosophically hard. It is simply did he address the injustice with proposed policy changes, or not prior to the interruption. All else is red herrings.
@ Tony!
What if it was a group of leprechauns who were tired of people stealing their gold? What if they were bigfoot believers? Or lizard people?
Guess that’s a long winded way of answering your question with a “no”.
It just occurred to me:
The Stonewall Uprising was a violent series of events in 1969 that kicked the modern LGBT rights movement into high gear. Yes, it was violent. It was also a moment when people (led by trans activists and queers of color, not that white guy from the previews) said ENOUGH. They said no more of this shit from the people in power. No more being abused, brutalized, imprisoned, and generally shit on. They lashed out. They stood up and fought back. They defended themselves.
And that uprising is looked back upon with respect. Some would say it was inevitable, if not necessary.
Now here it is 2015, and a group of activists are simply being rude in demanding that a progressive candidate address the problem of racial inequality, and they’re treated by many progressives as if they’ve committed a cardinal sin. There are progressives that would deny black people just being rude. Not committing any violence. Just taking away a microphone and ending a rally.
Funny that.
In the not at all kinda funny way.
@79 Nerd of Redhead
I agree with this statement. What YOU don’t seem to understand is that I’m not saying people can’t get passionate, that they can’t get disruptive, that they can’t shout and scream about these important issues. The question is are they actually protesting in service of a positive agenda? Did they actually have anything of substance to say?
Because, while shouting is a natural response to people not listening, they were let into the event. They were let onstage. They had a platform. They had the perfect chance to say for themselves what their actual grievances with Sanders are, instead of relying on well-meaning progressives to make assumptions. They could have said anything more substantial than flat-out bullshit like
What actions? Failing to mention that it was the anniversary of Freddie Grey’s death (even though it wasn’t)? Seriously? It makes it clear that they didn’t come there to support a cause, they came there just to disrupt an important progressive event. And considering that at least one of the protestors revealed herself to be a fanatical Christian on facebook, I can’t help but feel that disrupting a liberal rally was the point more than actually fighting for a worthwhile cause.
It seems to me pretty obvious that out of your desire to be on the right of this issue, you’re making up excuses for a couple of people who are little better than Teabaggers, shouting rage at a perceived enemy out of their own ignorance.
@Tony 100
Yeah, I think Stonewall was more about striking back against the people actively beating and killing gays, and notsomuch ransacking the house of someone who’d spent decades supporting gay rights.
He couldn’t address the problem, because they didn’t let him. The Sanders crew had the decency to let the protestors up on stage to address the problem themselves, and instead they utterly failed to talk about the issue and then they shut down the whole rally.
@38 rq
“Weren’t much good as allies in the first place, then, were they? If they understand the issue, they can bear with a bit of disruption.”
They could have been useful allies by voting for laws favoring equality, for instance. You don’t have to feel very strongly about an issue to do that. But now they might associate it with rudely wasting their trip to Seattle, as people aren’t often completely rational when making decisions. As for “bearing with disruption”, people generally don’t work that way. If I’m watching a movie in a theater and someone bursts into the theater protesting, or if I’m driving to work and someone blocks the road to protest, I’m not going to think “it’s a good cause, so I don’t mind” no matter what the subject is.
“The point of protest is to disrupt as much as possible”
If you’re going to be disruptive, disrupt the people acting against you. They’re not behind your cause anyway, and you still get the exposure to influence those on the fence and unite those on your side.
“Shorter Mickey Mortimer: black people (and anyone who is oppressed) should shut up and know their place. Being loud invalidates your issues. :P”
No, shorter me is: no one should forcefully take over others’ events, no matter the group or subject. Again, using the atheist analogy, I think we should be loud, but if an atheist burst into a church and demanded to yell at the congregants about the injustices atheists face around the world, I’d think that’s a very bad way to get the message across and would want to dissociate myself from them. It doesn’t matter that atheists are e.g. being killed in Bangladesh, I still don’t think it’s the right way to go about things.
@65 eeyore
“what happened in Seattle did not leave anyone with the impression that Sanders can keep control of situations.”
I was thinking the same thing. I’ve seen how Obama handles hecklers- he gives them a chance to speak but then insists he has a turn too. Maintains control, asks for mutual respect, and sometimes even inserts humor. Sanders utterly failed at that, and it left me thinking he might not be presidential material. So I agree with The Vicar @55 that I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a goal of the protesters, now that we know they’re conservative.
Is this in reference to her mentioning that she had a Sarah Palin button pin back when she was in high school? My views have changed a bit for the better since I was in high school. Also, as we know being wrong in one area doesn’t mean you are wrong in all areas.
@104 HappyNat
No, I’m with you on the Sarah Palin thing. I think that tweet reads pretty clearly in the vein of “Oh, I’ve changed so much since then”.
I’m actually talking about when she went to facebook to compare herself to Jesus.
I think this has since been taken down.
zibble @102:
Stonewall was about lashing out at institutionalized violence against LGBT people.
The Black Lives Matter movement is about addressing the institutionalized violence and systemic racism faced by African-Americans. The activists felt that Bernie Sanders was not adequately addressing an issue that is tearing families apart and killing people. They clearly don’t care about being polite when the stakes are that high.
I’m talking about the root of the reasons for both sets of actions. You’re looking solely at the actions.
If you look just at the actions of the Stonewall rioters, I can see how one would think “that was not cool; completely out of the question”. But when you take context into account and realize how they’ve been treated, you (general you) start to realize there was a reason for their actions, and that reason was justified.
Meanwhile, the same hold true for events that weren’t even violent. E.g. the actions of activists over this past weekend. BLM activists seek to address the systemic racism faced by blacks in this country. The two women picked a candidate who is receptive to the message of BLM, rather than a Republican who wouldn’t have been (nor would a Republican crowd). The reasons are the same. They acted the way they did because they’re tired of black people being shit on in society.
I drew a parallel between the two because many people believe the actions of the Stonewall rioters were justified, and they were committing violence. Meanwhile people are decrying the actions of black protesters who are facing similar kinds of discrimination and violence, yet all they did was storm a stage and take a microphone.
****
Mickey Mortimer @103:
See, and here is one of the problems I have with this line of thinking. I’m don’t know your ethnicity, so I can’t speculate. What I do know is that a lot of white people are telling black people the proper way to fight for and advocate for civil rights. That’s as fucked up as heterosexuals telling LGB people how to better fight for their rights. Or men telling women “this is how you fight for equality”. Or cis people saying “hey trans folk, do things this way”. It’s fucked up and it’s patronizing.
Also, as mentioned upthread, it makes sense to send your message to the guy who is going to listen. Sanders is more receptive to the message “You ought to address systemic racism more than you have been” than say, Mike Huckabee. As I pointed out @90, this was calculated.
Yeah, actually, Tony and Nerd of Redhead? I was kind of on your side of this question up at the top of this thread, but the more you work to justify your positions, the more you make me question whether you really care about the issue at all. You’re arguing that the protestors were right on practical grounds, regardless of politeness or respectability, but on practical grounds, Mickey Mortimer’s post #103 is quite right: if anything, this event served to underline to anyone who might be wavering that the most visible representatives of Black Lives Matter are impractical and stupidly undermine their potential allies if given a chance. If you want to argue that protestors should be given a voice, fine — but if you’re going to argue for it on pragmatic grounds, then the protestors should behave pragmatically, and this wasn’t even on the same continent as pragmatism.
Speaking as someone who is really, really trying to follow this conversation:
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
.
In addition, stating the nym of the person you’re quoting and the comment number makes it easier to follow the flow of the dialog.
.
Many thanks to those who are already doing this.
@97 Tony!
Ah, so this you’re saying this only applies to civil rights specific issues? Other activist groups should never be allowed to do such things? That’s certainly a position I can comprehend.
Do you think it matters whether Sanders mentioned support for BLM or not? Whether he was vocal supporter or not? Because as you are saying, it’s a black civil rights group taking the mic from a white guy on a podium.
Do you agree with Nerd of Redhead @98?
Personally, I fail to see why him addressing the concerns of BLM prior to the interruption makes any difference. I don’t understand why it matters. If you feel it does, please explain.
@106 Tony
Yeah, because I’m not decrying them for shouting, I’m decrying them for shouting bullshit. There was no substance to what they were saying. They were a couple of angry, nihilistic kids appropriating the BLM hashtag to shit on an actually sympathetic voice. If they had an actual criticism of Sanders, that would be one thing, but the fact that y’all are grasping at straws trying to find *anything* remotely justifying their anger towards Sanders (not mentioning the anniversary of Michael Brown? Fucking really?) shows how little they actually had to say.
Tom Weiss @35
Monolithically progressive? MONOLITHICALLY PROGRESSIVE? Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, New York, Chicago, and Seattle? You don’t know much about any those cities, do you? Just as one EXTREMELY OBVIOUS example, it wasn’t monolithic progressivism that killed Michael Brown in St Louis.
I’m trying to get caught up on all of this. Following/finding info, listening, thinking. I don’t think I have good handle on it yet because the more I read, the more I have my reservations about the true motivations of these two particular BLM activists and their protest. On the one hand, it appears to have prompted BS to take positive action and garnered media attention to the BLM movement (good things). On the other, his campaign may have been sunk by this protest (maybe not such a good thing.) Time will tell. I hope I’m wrong in my reservations, I really am.
Dear Nat,
What Sanders did 50 years ago was only mentioned in response to an idiotic comment that challenged him ever being involved in the civil rights movement. Resting on those laurels would mean nothing but anyone who has bothered to read something would know that he has done no such thing and has maintained his very vocal stance on civil rights since then. Please do not begin to lecture me about the state of race relations. I have lived it myself and certainly don’t need some pampered keyboard warrior to tell me how I am being oppressed and how I should react to it. Sanders has been standing up against police violence since he announced his run… The fact that you and others want him to be a one-trick pony is sad. As others here have mentioned, this stunt could not have been a response to him failing to mention the topic in his speech because he was never allowed to say ANYTHING. Sanders has been one of the loudest voices when it comes to the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression. Prison system reform has been a constant issue for him. He supported migrant and developing world worker issues when every other politician was pretending they didn’t exist. And I could go on…
He has been one of the few individuals to put his words into action and his lone self is worth far more than every loud-mouthed idiot and internet warrior who can do nothing except shout slogans. And if you think the measure of a person is whether or not they say exactly what you want, exactly when you want, and in the exact way you want, then might I kindly invite YOU to fuck off.
@106 Tony
I’m white, for what it’s worth. From my perspective, I’m giving my opinion on how ANYONE should protest, whether it’s a group I belong to (transgender, atheist, white, etc.) or that I don’t (black, paraplegic, Christian, etc.). I’m not saying black people should behave a certain way, I’m saying everyone should behave a certain way. But based on your post @97, you seem to think marginalized groups should be given more leeway when it comes to which actions are acceptable, which I disagree with.
The idea that only a member of a group can tell that group they’re “doing things wrong” also doesn’t make sense to me. Are only other Christians allowed to tell the county clerks still protesting gay marriage that their methods are futile and will result in them being seen as on the wrong side of history? Of course not. Or you could come at BlackLivesMatter from another angle and say what right do I have as a common civilian to tell the police that their blatant abuse of power and string of recent murders makes me less sympathetic to them, and that they should change policies in various ways? After all, I’m not a policewoman. I don’t know what it’s like to have to engage with criminals, get shot at, fulfill quotas, etc.. But obviously you and I feel fine criticizing that group we’re not members of. In any case, I’d think that if you depended on the majority to help institute the change you desire, you’d want them to point out when your actions make them unsympathetic.
Sanders would have got the message just fine if BLM were protesting every conservative presidential rally instead, as that would be national news. Then you’d just be annoying conservatives instead, who are the ones gerrymandering, making it harder for blacks to vote, etc.. As it is, yeah Sanders was influenced into emphasizing BLM as a talking point, but that’s not the same as positively affecting his actions if he gets into office. Even presidents feel resentment.
Finally, “You ought to address systemic racism more than you have been” was not the protesters’ message. I would have been 100% behind that. As quoted, their message was actually “If you do not listen to us, your event will be shut down.” Quite a bit different.
# 110 zibble
Are you making this criticism having watched a video of it? I think they did discuss specific issues they had, focusing on racial issues in Seattle, though they weren’t issues with Sanders himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOuCfdJYMM
I’m curious what the commentariat thinks about spokespeople for BLM seeking an apology from the protesters to Bernie Sanders.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/10/real-black-lives-matter-wsnts-activists-publicly-apologize-bernie-sanders.html
Do these BLM people not understand the group’s aims? Is it impossible for anyone with a direct stake in BLM issues to disagree with the protesters’ tactics?
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/nyt-learning-from-the-ferguson-tragedy
To the Editor:
The New York Times and other media have focused enormous attention on the tragedy in Ferguson, Mo., where an unarmed black youth was shot and killed by a police officer. Unfortunately, there has been very little discussion about the economic and social tragedy that has befallen an entire generation of young black men.
Today, more than 5.5 million young Americans have either dropped out of high school or graduated from high school and have no jobs. Today, while youth unemployment is 20 percent, African-American youth unemployment is 35 percent, and in the St. Louis area, it is even higher than that.
Incredibly, there are estimates that if present trends continue, one of every three black American men born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime.
If there is anything that we can learn from the Ferguson tragedy, it should be a recognition that we need to address the extraordinary crises facing black youths. That means, among other things, a major jobs program, job training and vastly improved educational opportunities.
BERNARD SANDERS
U.S. Senator from Vermont
Burlington, Vt., Aug. 20, 2014
====
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/citing-crisis-in-ferguson-sanders-to-propose-youth-jobs-bill
In a letter to Senate colleagues, Sanders called for a thorough federal investigation of the Aug. 9 death of an unarmed black teenager who was shot by a police officer in the St. Louis suburb. “All of us have a responsibility to make sure that what happened in Ferguson never happens again,” Sanders said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U51lixGY7Nw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22qFWTsnfh4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbxobSrrC68
===
I’m not sure how anyone can say with a straight face that Sanders has been silent on this issue or remiss in addressing it.
@73 rq
I saw Bernie Sanders in Des Moines at Valley High School on July 24. He brought up Sandra Bland, police brutality, and militarization of the police. This could have been due to Networks Nation, I don’t know. Unfortunately, this was a nearly lily-white Iowan crowd- something our Democrats need to work on.
@footface:
Yeah, about that, um, that would be wrong:
That factual matter aside, I do think there is reasonable room for discussion about whether tactics are productive. I’m not at all buying Nerd’s argument that anybody can seize any microphone anywhere and be above criticism, as long as they’re part of/acting on behalf of a marginalized group. Particularly since by all accounts, many of them noted in this thread, Sanders has been going above and beyond in responding to the debacle at Netroots Nation.
That said, next remark directed at Tony!:
Despite disagreeing that interrupting the white guy on the podium — in this case — was a good tactical move, I absolutely agree with this. Fuck, from initial campaign statements, Bernie Sanders doesn’t think this was that big of a deal.
I’m kind of aghast that some people* are treating this as the moment that will break the Bernie Sanders campaign, and therefore THESE WOMEN ARE THE RALPH NADERS OF 2016!!! I mean, seriously, if the campaign is that rocky, or if the Almighty Media can spin this so successfully as to break Sanders this far in advance of the primaries, dude never had a chance anyway, and all this finger-pointing could be more usefully devoted to local organizing. In my not so humble opinion, of course.
* This is more a general internet observation, not so much in this thread. Mostly.
@ woozy:
They’re either lying or deliberately ignorant, would be my guess.
When I ask ‘has Sanders been to any protests?’ I mean just that – not whether he has addressed issues in his speeches, which is (indeed!) a very vocal stance. But: Has he been to any BLM events (besides those imposed upon him)? Has he been to speak to the communities in several of the cities where the more prominent (or heck, even less prominent!) police killings have occurred? With religious leaders or other leaders keeping those communities together? With activists working on policy changes? Has he walked with protestors now, here, in the twenty-teens? Yesterday Ferguson protestors held an action at the justice centre with the intention of getting arrested – including several religious leaders, prominent activists, and other people. Has Sanders perhaps considered participating or witnessing such an action at any time in the recent past or the near future? That would be 100% behind the issues. As vocal as he might be, such actions would be far, far louder.
Mentioning these issues and dropping names in speeches? Sure, yes, that’s a great start. How about mentioning some of the names less-known to the media? There’s lists and lists and lists and lists… Jonathan Ferrell? Eric Harris? Whatever happened with the Walter Scott murder? Maybe he can mention some black trans women who have been murdered – the most recent being Amber Monroe (though, sure, if we’re talking police brutality and racism, that might seem off-topic, but on the other hand, how hard do you think the police will investigate and how well will they stick to preferred pronouns, and other such microaggressions?)?
Anything more than media-acquired information would be awesome from Bernie Sanders. I really like his Racial Justice part of the platform. I’d love to see him address these issues more, (a) because they need to be addressed and (b) to see how his fanbase responds. Could be very, very interesting. Especially if it emphasizes the fact that all black lives matter, not just from an institutionalized viewpoint, but within society, too.
Anyway. That’s a bit of a morning ramble, hope it was clear enough!
Two days after Black Lives Matter protesters derailed his rally, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders allowed the same activist group to open a major campaign event in Los Angeles.
tomh @121
Yay!
See, everyone? Sanders is learning! Yay Bernie!
Funny how Bernie himsef was well to the left of zibble and other Sandernistas on this particular issue. He said the protesters were absolutely right.
http://livestream.com/accounts/85550/events/4260534
qwints in post #25 – reading the article at your 2nd link, I must say that I have never seen such clear examples of ad hominem attacks before as the attacks on Angry Black Lady in that article.
tomh @121
(Note – see important edit at bottom)
Wow. First time I’ve ever heard a white person use the construct, “Yes, ‘black lives matter’. But…” and not immediately follow up with something that made me feel ashamed to be white.
“Single-issue voting” is generally frowned upon, but I’ll proudly wear the mantle of “Single sentence voter”; after seeing just this one sentence, I’m Sanders-2016 all the way (if he’s so right on this, I’m totally pumped to see what else he has to say).
Edit: Whoops – only after copy/pasting the quote; did I see I’d read too quickly, and had mis-attributed to Bernie the words of his press secretary, Symone Sanders (yes, “Symone” was even included in original – I really shouldn’t write comments before my first cup of coffee). But I’m letting my original sentiment stand, just adding: if Bernie endorses the message (and has hired a black woman as national press secretary to help amplify that stance), that speaks just as loudly to me.
treefrogdundee @113
Thank you for the perfect example of the typical Bernie supporter, condescending, dismissive, and paternalistic. I like Bernie OK, it’s the members of his fan club that I have a problem with.
HappyNat, no one cares about you developing a little stereotype in your head based on your limited personal experience with Bernie Sander’s supporters.
My dear Nat,
Speaking of condescending, might I remind you that it was YOU who initially to ME to fuck off in response to a comment I never made (about how my opinion of the protestors somehow translated into an altered opinion on police brutality). Speaking of paternalistic, I actually have lived the results of racial inequality and state over-reaction in this country. And it has been my experience that the loudest voices exclaiming how I should REALLY feel and what the situation REALLY is and who the REAL enemy is mostly come from pampered suburban idiots (mostly white) or keyboard warriors. Still not interested in fake sympathy coming from slogan-shouting clowns.
“The problem with Sanders, and with white Seattle progressives in general, is that they are utterly and totally useless (when not outright harmful) in terms of the fight for Black lives.”
That is racism no matter how you spell it. They don’t speak for me or the majority of blacks who protest racial inequality. And the groveling that has come from certain white segments of the civil rights crowd – that people just don’t understand what they were trying to do or that it brought out an issue nobody was talking about – is condescending and insulting.
Footface @116
So, the spokespeople want an apology?
What does their base want?
Well, with nearly 5k likes and almost 4k shares, I imagine this is what their base wants. At least a not unsubstantial portion of it.
Also, this is an interview with Marissa Johnson on TWiB last night. I think it’s rather pertinent.
Also, if you don’t mind my triple post, enjoy this comment from a Bernie Sanders sycophant:
Now I’m not saying guilt by association, and I’m not saying that this is representative or anything, but clearly there is a problem.
treefrogdundee @ 129, to sidestep the “prejudice + power” discussion, I’ll discuss your point as a claim of prejudice or bigotry rather than systemic or institutional racism. With that in mind, the attack seems to be specifically directed at a sufficiently definable group (white progressives in Seattle) and to be about a specific point (failure to support Black movements/actually fight against police violence). I don’t have the information to evaluate the truth of the claim, but it’s not a racist claim any more than saying Black christians in California did nothing for or hurt gay rights.
@131 throwaway, I thought this line is particularly relevant to this discussion:
Host: “Why aren’t you picketing Hillary?”
Marissa Janae Johnson: “Hillary has better security than Obama” … “it’s about accessibility.”
Host: “It’s positively ludicrous for people to think that these activists would not be protesting Hillary if they could get to her.”
Quints,
In both cases, the subjects are being defined by, among other parameters, their skin color… the implication being that non-white Seattle progressives are actually useful. To define a person by some other quantifiable parameter (e.g. progressive or, in your example, Christian) is to define a person by how they act, what views they hold, etc. To define them – even partially – by skin color to to define an individual by who they were born as and not by who they are. That is as clear a definition of racism as there is. There is zero difference between Progressive A and Progressive B based on their color.
Adorbs.
Living with their privilege their whole lives in an insular world where their skin color protects them from egregious, often subconscious, acts that can only be explained by the supremacism which surrounds them, means that a white progressive is exactly the same as a black progressive.
treefrogdundee, talking about race isn’t racism.
Throwaway, you are making the distinction based on what experiences a person has had throughout their life. In the same way it would be ridiculous to compare the experiences of a black person in the Deep South to one in a northern inner city. And the protestor’s comment was not related to experiences… it was very clearly aimed at demeaning those present and belittling their efforts.
Qwints, I am all for talking about race. That’s what we are all doing here, right? I grew up a person of color in the bowels of the Old South so by all means, lets tear away the scab of race relations and expose it to sunlight. But what I have no interest in are those whose only desire is to shout without offering constructive suggestions. And if their rhetoric is directed at friends and allies, they cannot shut up and go away fast enough.
You mean their efforts at booing her and kicking her off the stage, while she broke down in tears as the white crowd there was ignoring the message that oppression is so foundational to the American experience that we’re absolutely steeped in it, so much so that we’re blind when it’s being perpetrated against people of color?
Totally not ironic.
doublereed @127
I’m sure you don’t care about what I think, however I’m hardly the only one with that perception of Bernie’s supporters. Dana just had a post on it today and the Bernie fans are swarming all over anyone on twitter who dares to question his greatness.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2015/08/11/some-people-of-color-bernie-sanders-fans-would-do-well-to-listen-to/
treefrogdundee @128
My fuck off was part of an If:Then proposition, that I stand by.
They booed her because she acted like a self-centered idiot bent on lecturing others that they and their efforts weren’t good enough. She deserved every bit of scorn she got so excuse me for not having a broken heart that her feelings were hurt and she was left in tears. The audience wasn’t ignoring the message, they were ignoring the idiot messenger. If you are so blind that you consider them identical then I feel sorry for you. And don’t give me that “steeped in racism” crap. I grew up a person of mixed race in one of the last hold-outs of avowed systemic racism in this country which is far more than 90% of today’s social warriors who only know the talking points they’ve been told to regurgitate. And I’ve also had the fortune to see that despite all its problems, the notion that the entirety of this country is marinated in racism is horseshit. I’ll judge others for their efforts, not for how much they self-flagellate themselves for being white.
Nat,
Your if:then proposition was based on something I never said or even alluded to which would make as much sense if I accused you of marching against same sex rights wearing a Klan robe. So in the spirit of the conversation, if you really are a racist homophobe, please fuck off which is a statement I stand by. If you aren’t then you shouldn’t be offended.
HappyNat (#80): How well has a “polite and civil fashion” worked for oppressed groups in the past? Civility plays in to the hands of the people in power, it’s how the status quo stays the status quo. Calling people who protest spoiled brats certainly doesn’t sound like the language of an ally.
I’ll agree it doesn’t work to deal with oppressors in a polite and civil fashion. What’s different about this protest in Seattle is that it was (or at least appeared to be) hostile and overbearing treatment of an ally. By no stretch of the imagination could Bernie Sanders be considered an oppressor of black folks, or even indifferent to their concerns.
Nerd of Redhead (#94): NOPE, show me with evidence, where BS addressed the problem in his speech prior to the interruption.
He had a perfect chance to outline his agenda prior to any interruption, making it look bad.. He didn’t use it. That is what folks like you don’t acknowledge.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Seattle speech supposed to be about Social Security?
Oh? Prove it.
Not cool throwaway.
I’ve rarely met someone who used their race at every turn to dismiss someone of the same or experiencing similar racism as often as you have treefrog. Makes it feel like some kind of trump card. Something like a bizarro-Dolezal.
The Vicar (#107): …but if you’re going to argue for it on pragmatic grounds, then the protestors should behave pragmatically, and this wasn’t even on the same continent as pragmatism.
Well put (and I’ll probably steal the last part of it.)
My initial take on this was to dismiss two black women who had reportedly gone onto the stage at a Bernie Sanders speech about social security issues, asked for and gotten the microphone, refused to give it back, and accused the audience of being “white supremacist liberals.”
Almost immediately, in following the discussions online, I learned that one of the women had been a Sarah Palin supporter in high school (she’s now a college graduate, one of her friends said on Facebook) and is now apparently a fundamentalist Christian and a supporter of Outside Agitators 206, a group that has declared war on Democrats and calls for the abolition of police (“an institution fundamentally rooted in white supremacy and anti-Blackness”) and prisons.
It also appeared that these women were not really members of BLM, since their Facebook page was only a few days old. It wasn’t long before someone started a petition asking them to apologize to BLM.
Liberals I’m following on Facebook generally condemned the protest as counterproductive, while those who defended it did so in generally incoherent ways.
The picture that emerged was one of two immature women claiming to speak for BLM but in reality acting as loose cannons (if they were members of BLM at all) whose protest resulted in a considerable backlash — not the result any genuine member of BLM would seek. The possibility they were agents provocateurs occurred to me. But I’ve never seen any hint of evidence for that.
To repeat, this was my initial take on the matter. Things I learned later, and still am learning, are modifying that position.
One of them was this article by Dara Lind, which points out the difference between Bernie Sanders’ economic liberalism and what BLM is asking for.
I’m not abandoning my initial position — not yet. But I may in future.
An aside to those who shorten Bernie Sanders’ name to “BS”: this may not be the most congenial way to refer to someone you support.
Throwaway,
I won’t bother dignifying the ‘prove it’ remark. (It would be pretty hard anyway since I keep my birth certificate in the same Nairobi bank vault as Obama’s) The ONLY reason I brought it up was because too many of those who are jumping on the bash-Bernie bandwagon throw out as their only defense “How dare you criticize those protestors if you haven’t walked in their shoes?” To which I say I HAVE walked in their shoes. I HAVE seen the ugly truth of race relations in this country. Which makes me even more grateful for those in positions of power like Sanders who care enough to attack the problem, and even more intolerant of those willing to attack allies because of any perceived slight.
Oh, and the Obama birth certificate quip was sarcasm, in case you didn’t catch that.
For people who are uncertain about the motives of the activists over the weekend, or those who think it is relevant that one of them was a Sarah Palin supporter in high school, please read this:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127653/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter
Also, see my link @90, regarding Patrice Cullors’ support of their actions.
Also see the my other link @90 describing why the actions of those women was strategic.
I can’t believe progressives are arguing about the proper way for a minority group to fight for equality. Nor can I believe that I’m having defend Black Lives Mattering being more important that taking a microphone and interrupting a rally.
Also see Dana Hunter’s link posted by HappyNat @141, which has many links to black people speaking out in support of the BLM protest. Yes, IN SUPPORT! If I had to pick one of the articles Dana links, right now, I would have to say read Robin Hayes’ piece.
Please also pay attention to the following paragraph from Dana:
If you go to the actual link, you will see that that paragraph is FULL OF MORE LINKS FOR EACH OF THESE STATEMENTS!
Recommended reading.
And all of y’all are so cute when you say “I was totally on their side until I realized they were a bunch of whining christian fakes”. Do you understand that the other aspects of their lives do not dilute their message that black lives matter? Do you understand that many of the black people killed by police were christians? Do their lives matter less for the religion in them? Do you understand that a large portion of protestors, prominent and not-so-prominent alike, are christians of one stripe or another? A great many are also muslim. Does this make their actions inconsequential or unimportant? Bree Newsome recited bible verses and prayers as she came down the flagpole, confederate rag in hand – does her action count as less because she is a strongly-identifying christian? I used to be catholic. Does this mean that anything I do in social justice is useless or unproductive? If yes, then I have news for all you other atheist converts, who used to be fundamental religionists. If no, then this shouldn’t matter here, either.
Or are you just looking for any excuse to discount anyone who dares to criticize your Saint Bernie of Totally On Your Side?
And why should you take issue with people criticizing Sanders? If he’s as good as you say he is, if he is as good as anyone says he is, he’ll take it and he’ll do better. Which he is already doing. So please, take your example from Sanders. Do better.
I’m sorry, I also just had an additional giggle over this phrase:
The poor ally.
Experiencing discomfort and disruption is part of being an ally. In the course of educating those less educated, some allies will be made to feel uncomfortable, angry, disappointed, etc. This is peanuts compared to the generations long discomfort, fear, stress, anxiety, anger and disappointment the oppressed group has felt. And yes, if you consider yourself an ally, you should be willing to take it
To anyone claiming that this action or netroots or any other protest at any Bernie Sanders campaign event torpedoed his campaign I submit that you have little to no understanding of American politics. Bernie Sanders knows better than anyone that he stands very close to 0% chance to win the Democratic nomination, much less the eventual election. Bernie Sanders is running to highlight his concerns, particularly income inequality and social safety nets. He wants to effect the eventual Democratic platform and the eventual nominee. He is doing a pretty good job of that so far. The protesters are taking advantage of that to get the issues they find most important heard. So far it has worked to get attention, whether that attention ends up being productive or counterproductive time will tell.
I would think that giving back the mic AFTER being given what they asked for (time to speak and a moment period of silence) would have left them looking better and perhaps been more tactically effective. Sanders almost certainly would have still made the changes that were clearly in the works for at least a month before and would have probably made them at the same time.
All that said, I can’t fault people protesting for a legitimate concern protesting in a way that will gather the most eyes. If they had protested at a Clinton event or any of the Republican events they would never have made it to the stage, probably wouldn’t even have gotten close to the event, and we wouldn’t be talking about them now. Hopefully collectively these actions will move the eventual platform and the eventual Democratic nominee in a positive direction.
rq: I’m sorry, I also just had an additional giggle over this phrase:
The poor ally.
Then I’m sure you won’t mind if I chortle over your penchant for taking quotes out of context.
And yes, if you consider yourself an ally, you should be willing to take it.
Works both ways, doesn’t it? And yet, you seem to reject any questioning of your position, no matter how mild. Or were you incapable of noticing the import of my messages, which is that I was willing to be convinced that the disruption of the Seattle speech was a) justified and b) advanced the BLM cause.
I didn’t complain about BLM’s protests during the speeches by O’Malley and Sanders at Netroots Nation. True, I didn’t know about them then. But now I do. Have you seen me complaining? No, and you won’t. Think about that.
Having learned more, I admit the Seattle protest advanced the BLM cause — mostly because it was Bernie Sanders being interrupted. But at the same time it alienated a whole bunch of people, including a number of BLM activists. Because it was tactically dumb. I’ve seen some people, including some pundits, worrying that Sanders might not be strong enough to be president because he allowed two protesters to shut down his event. I don’t hold that view, and I doubt it will prevail. But since you condone the sort of disruption that took place in Seattle, it’s arguable that you hope it does prevail.