MLK on white moderates

[BainsBane]

It's all the rage around here to quote MLK. Here are some words of his that are particularly appropriate for our current situation.

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.'" -Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

https://www.facebook.com/SWHelper?fref=nf

[Igel]

1. From the same source.

Martin Luther King, Jr: "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I am as concerned by one as the other. I have run into far too many--which is to say, 3--young black males who are utterly rejectionist, and would rather fail than learn from me, who insist I respect their right to reject geology than to respect other kids' rights, under their IEPs, to a free and appropriate public education on the basis of their skin color.

Here I see little complacency. I see a diversity of purposes, but it's not required that we all focus at the same moment on the same goal to be able to respect that we have different but praiseworthy goals. We can call that a "third way", not in the Clintonian sense but in response to MLK's text. They are neither KKKers nor strong activists for the Cause, but merely interested in other things. At DU, they are often other progressive things.

But too often the result of some of the rhetoric I see here, spoken elsewhere, is a kind of nihilism fed by bitterness and hatred that cannot be called "bitterness" or "hatred," not just because they're in 17- and 18-year-olds, but because it's unseemly for somebody so young to feed on their elders' castings. This is not the intent of many speakers (it clearly is the intent of a small number), but should be taken into account. Raising offspring in a spirit of bitterness and cynicism leads to nihilism and rejectionism, to terror on the part of young who have no direct experiences that should lead to terror.

This is to be paired with the "complacency" MLK spoke of, which I take to mean coasting, distracted by useless things, and neither aggressively pursuing their own improvement or society's improvement. But there is also a third option for those youth, as well, which is one of distraction. They are not complacent; nor activist; they are merely other-driven, whether for their own success (not at the expense of others, except for the denial of their efforts for the voluntary Cause) or for some cause other than their identity.

Unfortunately, what MLK called "bitterness and hatred" is how many outside "the community" see many actions that are interpreted differently inside the community. Just as symbols have meanings that vary by group, so also intentions are subject to out-group re-interpretation. Just something to keep in mind.

[BainsBane]

3. Your concern in regard to the epidemic of killing of black people in America

Is that black people don't listen to you? So the problem is not lethal racism but black people? Is that what you are saying?

I get that you're a teacher and you have some difficult students. I don't know what to say about that other than the issues of life and death are more urgent.

[cali]

2. du is hardly a bastion of white moderates.

More ridiculous stuff from you.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. And the results are in.

On Mon Aug 10, 2015, 09:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

du is hardly a bastion of white moderates.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7064509

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Can we just please encourage the community to discuss things civally rather that resort to nasty did like "More ridiculous stuff from you."?

The alert text days I'm advising you that it's "hurtful, rude, or insensitive" and I think this post qualified as that.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Aug 10, 2015, 09:18 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: BB has made a DU career out of ridiculous statements. I will not hide truth.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "ridiculous stuff" <-- attacking the message. "you are ridiculous" <--- attacking the messenger.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Silly alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This whole topic has been skirting the edge for 3 days now. This doesn't rise to a hide level given the overall tenor.

There are a lot of people looking for fights on this topic and this isn't one of the more offensive or insulting posts.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pretty mild IMO. I probably wouldn't want that leveled at me, but not alert-worthy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cali]

6. my fan club.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

12. It's nice to have fans that care so much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. We should exchange fans

They are just as persistent.

[romanic]

21. Don't let them get you cali!

[beam me up scottie]

25. +1

I automatically disregard anything the op and certain other Hillary supporters have to say about Bernie Sanders, civil rights and BLM.

They're exploiting the movement because they think it helps their candidate.

[BillZBubb]

51. It is absurd, isn't it?

It seems like the most moderate posters here have been bending over backwards defending BLM actions. The progressives, not so much.

[laundry_queen]

55. That was my thought too. nt

[WestCoastLib]

4. It seems strange for any black movement to attack the most liberal then, no?

I agree the word's are appropriate.

#BLM targeting the most corporate dems, rather than the most liberal would be more appropriate too, wouldn't you think?

[BainsBane]

9. corporate vs. liberal has nothing to do with black lives

That's very much a comment about the recent frustration about the decline of the white middle class.

It makes sense they target Democrats/liberals because that is who they have been putting in office for decades now. African Americans are the single largest voting block in the Democratic Party. And they are being slaughtered in the streets. Folks are tired of putting Democrats into office and not being treated as equal citizens. They want results.

It would make no sense to target Republicans or conservatives. They don't give a shit and never will. Democrats have to figure out how to earn black votes to be elected.

[WestCoastLib]

10. Then your quote is not relevant.

The quote is concerning white moderates. If your position is what you just stated, then MLK's quote has nothing to do with your position.

[BainsBane]

11. What?

The point is not moderate vs. liberal. It is the reaction by people to movements for racial equality. The point was moderate as in not Klansmen, not politically moderate per se.

[AOR]

15. "Equality" is not possible under capitalist relations (political, social, economic)

you can dispute that but you would be ignoring objective material reality. Structural racial inequality is a by-product of capitalist social arrangements. There is no history or narrative that proves otherwise. If you have one that does... please prove it. Black leftists and leftists of all stripes understand that. Black capitalists and capitalists of all stripes do not. It's that simple. It remains to be seen how many in the Black Lives Matter movement are leftists and understand that. Clinton won't change that, the Democratic Party won't change that, Obama hasn't changed a thing...in fact it's gotten worse under his watch. Sanders somewhat understands that but won't change much running as a Democrat even if he wins. Only leftists understand the role that capitalist social arrangements play in institutionalized racism. The capitalist power structure is the problem.

For those who deny that...show the leftists your results that prove otherwise. You can't show results that prove otherwise because the destruction caused by capitalist social relations gets worse by the day for an ever increasing amount of struggling people of all stripes including mass devastation in inner city AA communities throughout the country.

[socialist_n_TN]

22. Agreed. The only other thing I will add and elaborate on is.........

the part where you said that "Black leftists and leftists of all stripes understand that. Black capitalists and all capitalists do not." THIS is one of the things I'm beginning to suspect about the "official" BLM movement. They don't understand this relation between racism and capitalism and that's because the movement, being a coalition, is made up of all types of political beliefs, INCLUDING A LARGE PORTION OF CAPITALISTS AND CAPITALIST SUPPORTERS who don't understand or deny the relation between capitalism and racism.

I'm beginning to feel about BLM just like I wound up feeling about the Occupy movement. They are both railing against "systemic" issues and abuses without naming the actual system that enables what they're railing against.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. BTW check out our Socialist Progressives group on DU...

Sounds like you would fit in well.

[AOR]

24. Total agreement socialist_n_TN...

the movement is a mixed bag. Posted this earlier on another thread. I think it has some half-baked relevance to what you're saying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7067778

Thanks for the invite to check out socialist/progressives. Been reading here for years so I'm familiar with it and your work and some others in there and read it all the time. I don't want to intrude. I will say one thing on protected groups. The work some do there needs to be out front for all to see. I know people like a small circle as a base, but that's not what leftists need right now on big boards. Observers and people looking for a "new way forward" - is that politically correct enough - need to here the leftist viewpoint. We need all hands on board for real analysis on class struggle and class analysis despite any divisions that exist between factions of actual leftists and there are divisions as you know. I understand this is Democratic Underground so things are somewhat limited for leftists - in that frame - but leftist views need to be heard despite blatant red-baiting that still takes place everywhere. I'm lacking in the grammar department and no leftist scholar but what the hell I'm gonna keep trying whether here or elsewhere.

[Ed Suspicious]

26. Right here!

[George II]

16. How do we measure the level of "liberal" in a person/candidate? Is there a gauge...

...that we can download?

[RedCappedBandit]

7. It's a great quote.

That doesn't mean that every instance of "direct action" is above reproach.

[Supersedeas]

56. and worthy of a second and third look

[aikoaiko]

8. Have you read the whole letter?

You should.

[ananda]

14. I so hear that.

Didn't Dante have a special place in hell for the moderates?

[ljm2002]

17. Would you categorize Bernie Sanders as a white moderate?

How about Hillary Clinton?

Just curious.

[Supersedeas]

59. Yes and No

Hillary is a white conservative democrat

[Romulox]

18. LOL. Hillary and her supporters are the "moderates" though. Oops! nt

[Hydra]

19. *Holds up a mirror*

White moderates are not progressives. Hillary Clinton camp are moderates, so thank you SO much for affirming MLK knows his stuff.

[BainsBane]

28. I find it astounding that the only thing that anyone seems to care about

is the label. Look at the quote and what King is talking about. He is talking about the very kinds of criticism we have seen of Black Lives Matter. Here is the point. This is a historical piece. It is not about the fact some people believe themselves superior for using the word "liberal" or "progressive." King as not talking about an election 50 years in the future and people who would form their entire political identity according to someone running to head the capitalist state. He was talking about obstacles to racial equality, issues far bigger than a single politician or electoral cycle.


Now, in my opinion anyone who takes the attitude we have seen lately toward a movement for black lives is neither liberal, progressive or moderate. However, in King's use of the term, it is meant as people who were not card caring Klansmen but those who believed themselves open minded racially--only they stood in the way of progress. I believe the words reflect precisely what we are seeing today. It is not about Sanders vs. Clinton or any other politician. It is about racial equality and whether one acts to further racial justice or impede it.

Now clearly a number of people who insist they are progressive have spent a great deal of time criticizing the tactics of today's civil right's activists. I really don't care who those people support for president. If they supported a different candidate, they would be doing the same thing because it's not about the candidate, it's about their own discomfort with a rapidly changing social order.

[Hydra]

31. Black Lives Matter. All Lives Matter.

#BLM is a divisive organization whose leaders support members with agendas that do not mesh with their supposed cause.

The movement moves on without them. The people who support their divisiveness to support their own agendas did a lot of damage to their own aims here on DU. That includes you and others.

MLK understood that this is an inclusive movement- inclusive of races, inclusive of economics, education, social justice, addressing abuse of power and everything else involved in human equality. He called for the best in all of us to bring forth an entirely new world.

If you don't want to be part of the equality movement and the giants that fought and died to lay the path for us, feel free- but don't say that you are when you support those who divide and try to divide yourself.

[BainsBane]

34. They haven't done damage

They got Bernie and O'Malley to release plans for racial equality. They've forced Hillary Clinton to sit down and discuss their demands. They've elevated their concerns to a level where everyone is talking about it and anyone seeking the Democratic nomination is having to figure out how to respond to their demands. African Americans have put Democrats into office for decades. They are the single most loyal Democratic voting block, and they are using that voting power to advance their own concerns for human life rather than simply providing votes.

MLK was a civil rights activist. Abuse of power is perpetrated not just at the level of government but through people who work to undermine civil rights by insisting their own privilege comes first. It is performed on a daily level, on city streets, in small towns, and in cyberspace.

The only ones who have damaged themselves are Sanders supporters. They have made his candidacy toxic so that it has become synonymous with a shocking level of tone deafness and aggressive hostility toward a movement of racial equality.

To pretend that civil rights is not about equality and is instead "divisive" is a RW argument, exactly what Fox News and the GOP has argued for sometime because the Democratic party represents the interests of people of color, women, and LGBT. In such a view, the only thing not divisive is ignoring the interests of the subaltern for the white majority--in order words, enforcing inequality and white privilege.

BLM is not "divisive" because they dare to raise attention to the epidemic of killing of black people rather than the more important issue of the white bourgeoisie's anger at Wall Street. "if I don't want to join a movement for equality." Bullshit. I stand for equality. What I will not join is efforts to elevate the privilege of the self-entitled over the lives of other human beings, and I find the very notion that it is even possible to advocate equality while denying the value of a movement for those lives the ultimate in hypocrisy. That you invoke the word equality is the ultimate of irony. You are advocating the very opposite, stomping out concerns about human rights for your own material comfort. If I don't recognize how much more important your pocket book is, your political heroes, your right to not be confronted with uppity black folks who dare to talk about deaths of black people, than I can't possibly be for equality. They are divisive because they fail to recognize how superior the white "liberal" is to themselves, how inconsequential a movement for their lives is in comparison to the egos and feelings of the self-entitled. The bastardization of MLK to promote the economic interests of the minority--because you all are not the majority, either politically or demographically--over the basic civil rights of African Americans, over their lives, is an epic level of cynicism. You can be sure I will not be joining any movement that engages in the disgusting racism I have seen in the wake of Seattle, even worse than that which followed Netroots. I would sooner poke my eyes out than help such people assert their supremacy, all while appropriating MLK in the most cynical of ways.

I pledge here and now to fight the efforts of the white bourgeoisie to put black folks in their place so that the white upper-middle and middle class can regain what they see as their rightful place atop the capitalist world order, a system of grievous inequality they were more than happy with as long as they benefited over the many. I will fight for TRUE equality, which means the end of white privilege and entitlement, the end to six figure incomes for the upper 20 percent at the expense of the 80%, the end to global capitalist exploitation that enables those 6 figures incomes. That is a kind of equality none of you folks want. What you want is to regain any lost privilege, which is the opposite of equality.

[R B Garr]

36. +1000. You always nail it.

Great post.

[craigmatic]

20. Only it's not the white moderate it's the white "liberal" this time around.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Alicia Garza yesterday. (She is part of BLM)

Here's the thing: what this last week has shown me (actually confirmed for me) is that populism can be really dangerous and tend rightward. Pay attention to these reactions. White people never rose up so much for a white candidate. Not even when Clinton ran one of the most racist campaigns against Obama in 2008. And the right has been silent but don't mistake silent for being inactive. Marinate on that for a minute.

Baines should I point to you this point was made here in 2008. Keith Olbermann made it as well in Countdown, contemporary to those issues...I might add, this point has been made here in the last six months.

I would stop playing these games if I were you. By the way, sage one, do tell me what I am missing since I cover locally race relations. I really want to be educated by somebody who seems good at using this for only political advantage. If you go and find the rest of Garza's writings...for that matter those of many of her side of BLM, you might want to take a mirror. I especially recommend her prescription about the Democratic Party and black institutions like the Urban League.

[R B Garr]

35. Garza also said yesterday on MSNBC that Bernie supporters have been nasty

to BLM, and that is a recent criticism that is very real and has been playing itself out here and on the internet. It's not a "game." So take your own advice and quit playing games yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Yes, she did

and Hayes did not ask hard questions which he should have, given what she has written.

Nor do I consider her more than just a contributor to the movement. After all, that is what she has written on her own role in this. So far from a leader.

So take your own advise and STOP PLAYING RACIST games.

[R B Garr]

38. This is just another of your amateur attempts to seize talking points

which you do in the name of so-called "journalism". LMAO.

You were the one who showed up here with some supposed 'gotcha' points to harass the OP, but you just couched it in what YOU wanted to talk about. So quit playing RACIST GAMES yourself. Who are you to judge who is more important in BLM -- hint: not you. Who gives a crap who you consider important to the movement. How out of touch to even suggest that.

Garza was talking about the nastiness of Sander's supporters, so tough luck if you don't want to hear it. It's real, and it's not a "game."

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Nah it is not

the OP did a nasty attack and the context of the present shows just how off she is.

As to you, please do proceed with the overt racism. When is the open antisemitism coming? I expect it.

[R B Garr]

40. Another amateur attempt to co-opt talking points, just like I predicted.

Only you can quote Garza and not be racist. LOL. Garza definitely mentioned nasty Bernie supporters in the piece yesterday on MSNBC, and that's a current issue, and it's real.

And I seriously did laugh at the "anti-Semitism" rock you threw. I was going to ask you how long it would be before you brought up that Bernie was Jewish, and sure enough you came through immediately.

Quit PLAYING RACIST GAMES yourself.

Oh, let's see, this is where you call me adorable, right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Nope not one bit

Mrs Garza pointed to the history of this in her own words, Many of us have pointed to it. Given that history I expect it.

The rest of it is your damn imagination. The OP (and you) are using racism for political ends. I find it shameful, and disgusting. So when is the open antisemitism going to happen? I fully expect it.

[R B Garr]

42. LOL, another amateur attempt to seize a valid and current media story

and twist it into racial games so you can bring up phony anti-Semitism references, hence you're the one playing phony RACIAL GAMES.

You obviously don't want to recognize what Garza said just yesterday about nasty Bernie supporters, instead bringing up Clinton 2008. What Garza said about Bernie and his supporters is real and current, but go ahead and ignore it, as is your privilege. But your phony attempts to seize talking points has been noted -- actually several times now. This isn't the first time you've tried this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. It is not me twisting it

it is what it is.

If I were the only person to see this disgusting game you might have a point. I am not.

So when is the antisemitism coming? Given 2008, I can taste it.

[R B Garr]

44. Since you brought up anti-semitism, you know exactly when it's coming.

because.....you brought it up. So take your own advice and quit playing the racist games.

And you are the one who refuses to acknowledge Garza's and BLM's CURRENT comments about the nasty Bernie supporters in amateur efforts to seize talking points. What she said about 2008 was every bit as relevant as what she said about the current situation with nasty Bernie supporters on the internet. So quit playing racial games, yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Now I will quote to you from an AA who is critical of what happened.

BLM had the attention and the agenda of the Democratic Party. Unless orders were sent to Seattle from national BLM leaders to shut Bernie down because he wasn’t listening to them at the negotiating table at which all of their previous actions had given them priority, then there was nothing strategic about the actions on Saturday. If Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford’s received no so such instructions then their actions amounted to nothing more than a temper tantrum that undermined their own goals.

And to see so-called leaders in our community vilify the response of Bernie Sanders’ crowd without holding Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford accountable for their own actions is as wrong as white progressives ignoring the actions of police officers that directly created the conditions that led to the deaths of so many African-Americans. You cannot divorce outcomes from the actions that directly led to that outcome. The mission of Black Lives Matter is unquestionably noble. Nevertheless, we cannot lay down principle and reason simply because we agree with the cause.

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/opinion-since-white-people-cant-lecture-the-blacklivesmatter-movement-allow-me/

Just stop ok.

You are the one using racism and yes, given the history of 2008 when the Clinton campaign and partisans used race, I expect open antisemitism. And I expect here on DU.

[R B Garr]

46. Thanks for acknowledging that you REFUSE to acknowledge what Garza

said herself yesterday and instead replace it with something that supports your amateur and now desperate attempts to co-opt talking points.

This is the kind of so-called "journalism" that it is predictable at this point. Throw Garza under the bus now because she also said something derogatory about nasty internet Bernie supporters.

And you keep bringing up anti-Semitism, so quit playing games that you know it's coming. Of course you do...you bring it up. Duh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I know what Garza said

and you will continue this gamesmanship

Here is a hint for you, black lives matter is not monolithic, and you are the one trying again, to use race. Congrats, I will say it, when you use race, you are racist. You are also minimizing the words of a young African American activist because she does not conform to your racist agenda.

[R B Garr]

48. LMAO, see my above posts about your amateur and desperate attempts

to play racist games to co-opt talking points. In an above post, you said you didn't think Garza was a good BLM representative, but now you're so concerned about what is said about her. It was you who threw her under the bus because I brought up a juxtaposition to the Clinton 2008 comments that had to do with her comments on the Bernie Sanders campaign NOW. Not 2008. Now.

And I don't need any hints from you. You obviously need the hints. Here's one for you: you don't get to decide who is important in the BLM movement. That is for them to decide; not us. Telling people what is good for them is elitism along the lines of what privileged white folks would do. So quit with the racist games.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Continue having this converstation with yourself

there is a saying about pigs, and I really do not need to take a second shower.

[R B Garr]

50. Classy. At least you quit with your amateur attempt to co-opt racism

talking points.

Who do you think you are saying I'm racist when I talked about Garza, but you're not racist for bringing her up in the first place.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty is posting in bad faith and phony as hell, and it looks like you get called on it a lot around here. Now I see why.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. ...

[R B Garr]

54. LMAO. Now I see how appropriate that answer to you in ATA really was.

It all makes sense now.

[LeftOfWest]

29. Juanita Broderick

Paula Jones.

Feminists.

[nomorenomore08]

30. "Moderates" of any kind tend to be quite ineffectual, honestly.

When you're trying to hug the "safe middle" and not offend anybody, it's hard to accomplish much of anything.

[Nye Bevan]

33. Who has accomplished more? Barack Obama or Al Sharpton? (nt)

[nomorenomore08]

57. Sharpton has never been elected to high office, so that's a questionable comparison.

Obama has accomplished substantial good - along with a fair amount of not-so-good - but could've done a better job if he hadn't spent so much time trying (in vain) to please and placate everybody under the sun.

[phleshdef]

32. "Moderate" meant a very different thing in the 60s than now.

Lets keep context honest please.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. It's a damned good thing most of us aren't moderate.

But aren't you a moderate, Bain's Bane?

[Autumn]

58. I'm disappointed with white moderates too, in fact all moderates. They have weakened the

democratic party and watered down Liberal values.