African American
Related: About this forumI don't know if this has been posted to DU, yet; but; I thought it important ...
as it comes closest to what I cannot seem to effectively communicate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-slayton/bernies-problem_b_7880518.html
Note: I extend this beyond Bernie to answer the economic primacy adherents on DU.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)that he will be at the National Urban Leagues conference this Friday along with Hillary and Martin O'Mally. It will be interesting to see how that goes.
Jeb and Ben Carson are the only republicans showing up.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)After reading and thinking briefly, I can only think that this is about the health of a society (Bernie's platform on economic change, etc.). There are multiple facets to turn this around. Here's how I see it: first there were slaves; then there were the feudal lords; then capitalism. This is the class I believe Bernie is talking about. I'm just mentioning that because even though it's economic it contains an element which relates to racism. Nature, nurture, I don't know. But this is quite a significant proposal that amounts to everyone being on the same team, versus man eating man.
I almost think it's disingenuous, in a way, to expect less from Bernie on this topic despite knowing his overall context on race. A bright man with a well chosen group with a goal are more likely to achieve results of the liking of people of color than any of the other candidates. I don't think that's too bold a claim.
One team, all of us. See how things might change. As it stands, it's capitalists ripping us all off. And don't think I've gone raving mad all of a sudden. If you already know, it's workers being denied the fruits of their efforts that caused and causes ripples of jealousy and racism throughout a society. Just my belief.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when you claim we are "one team" while failing to recognize my interests, except through your frame, would suggest we are NOT one team ... I can be on your team, if I ignore what is important to me; but, you are unwilling to be on my team, unless I am willing to work towards your goals.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Changing of the economic setup that we have had, which pits 99% against each other as they toil for the 1%. We're all in a state of conflict, and that's not just an opinion. This is the revolution that is seriously needed to have happen. Big pieces of the rest of our problems start fading quickly when we do this. We are literally giving our life energy to our owners as we make them their profits.
Bernie was on live video tonight, and much of what he had to say was about race related problems we have endured for a long time, but which are now getting attention in the press more frequently.
I'm optimistic as hell. But this is a long term goal. I don't see anyone else proposing a means by which we do all end up on the same side. As for specific ways to deal with the crap that has been going on, there is no reason why that cannot happen while economic changes take place. But the reason I'm so adamant about Bernie as a choice is that without that economic change, It's already proven that the stress and strain between us as Americans is great enough that we see the rotten behavior. There will always be hard core racists, cheaters, greedhogs, and all the rest. But I have great optimism that together we can make a society where we've minimized the income inequality to the point where we're all in it together. It can happen. We just have to aim in the right direction. I do not mean to trivialize any of this. I have even lost a sister by calling her on her racism. I personally hurt from this in a way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you are viewing this from an economic primacy frame ...
True ... there will always be hordcore racists ... But, from a Black (racial) perspective, economic stress just makes the racism that exists, more pronounced/open ... not because Black folks are treated worse; but, because white folks look for someone to blame (and non-hardcore racist white folks notice what Black folks see/experience everyday).
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)That Sanders can't back down from hs approach - but he may lose black voters in the primary. And that's okay. As long as he makes up the difference in every other voting block,
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it appeared/appears that this is the Bernie Campaign's (and the Webb campaign's) bet ... they can attract enough disaffected white voters to offset the loss of the Black, and possibly, the Hispanic, vote.
If this is the case ... if election theory holds true (i.e., you dance with those that got you there) ... this doesn't bode well for the Black (and/or the Hispanic) community.
Note: This is not to say, a Bernie Presidency would work to hurt the Black Community; but rather, a Bernie Presidency would ignore ... no ... deprioritize, the Black Community. For example, the DoJ's resources would likely shift to jailing the bankers; while, voter rights continue to be denied.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)He's trying to run an old Bill Clinton style "It's the Economy, Stupid" campaign. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about these issues or wouldn't do anything about them. Particularly voting rights, as that hurts Democrats so significantly. I agree he's coming off as a bit tone deaf, and he seems to be working on that at least somewhat, but part of why Clinton comes off as so polished is because she has a huge staff of advisors helping her always say just the right thing. And she's learned from her own tone deaf past. It doesn't necessarily mean she cares more.
I think either of them would be concerned about voting rights. And that's largely a SCOTUS issue. We really need someone who will appoint very liberal people to the SCOTUS. Both of them would.
An area of personal concern to me is abortion rights. I'm old enough that it isn't as much for me but because I have daughters. I know HRC talks much more about abortion rights, and I love that about her, but I don't believe Sanders would appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court justices. I'm sure he's very pro-choice too. Do I wish he'd talk about it a lot more? Yes! Abortion rights are fading and it scares me. But I know things would improve as much with him in office as with Clinton, despite it at least appearing to be a higher priority to her. It's about who gets appointed to the SCOTUS, and either of them would appoint a pro-choice candidate. In decided whom to vote for, I've tried to focus on things they'd do differently in office rather than things where it seems to me they'd do the same thing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and, perhaps, have oversold my argument ... I really don't think a Bernie Presidency would be a step backwards with respect to the Black community and civil rights.
I have thought about this, as well ... the only thing I could come up with is style/approach.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Mainly with defense/international issues. I found this (you have to go down a ways to get to the section called "Issues."
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton
I'm from the industrial midwest, and my part of Michigan was hurt badly by NAFTA, so I am biased against free trade issues, and that's where they're most different.
But yeah they are much the same on most issues. I will say that I do appreciate her giving a larger spotlight to social issues. I'm not trying to tell you or anyone who to vote for, and there are legitimate reasons to make either choice. I'm just explaining for myself.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I understand and No worries.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)When one person trades to another, and then trades that item again, that's capitalism.
Bernie seems to see economic inequality as the root of all problems. African Americans see racism as the root.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)That is The Gospel of Saint Ronnie of Rayguns/bogus right wing mythology stuff there. There hasn't even been currency the history of man and no trade of goods is not capitalism.
It is a relatively modern system and certainly not the stuff of any kind of a natural order. I generally blame err...credit the Dutch as the real root for actually making it a thing but it required large scale trade, central banking was and is key, was given a power boost by industrialization, and then to fake work it took big, growing populations pushed to consume and waste to truly take off and become what we know that has been been building up for the past two or three hundred years and particularly the last 150.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)That gets this discussion off to a good start.
1. An economic system essentially based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
2. An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and producers compete to maximize their profits.
This has been around since the beginning of time. My point.
Now, the history of capitalism as stock owning companies is only 500 years old. Seems like only yesterday. This is your point.The history of capitalism can be traced back to early forms of merchant capitalism practiced in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.[1] It began to develop into its modern form during the Early Modern period in the Protestant countries of North-Western Europe, especially the Netherlands and England. Traders in Amsterdam and London created the first chartered joint-stock companies driving up commerce and trade, and the first stock exchanges and banking and insurance institutions were established.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism
The point is, capitalism is old, not new. People on DU often act like it was invented in the last election cycle.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)In no way where you contrasted with Reagan other than your statement.
Even in a relatively new species like humans, 500 years is not even in the ballpark of as long as people have been around.
I'll also go out on a limb and say racism predates agriculture much less capitalism, if the economic system is too set in and old then what hope by the same logic do we have to make the great stain right?
It is fine for one to not want to address the economic system for any number of reason but it's too old is not on my acceptable list. We better hope we can correct some old and nasty stuff or most likely as a race we die in the crib if not actually in the womb.
The only difference between yesterday and tomorrow is today we are accountable, we hold the strings and tomorrow is what we weave onto the tapestry now.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)But they are subject to the same DWB incidents experienced by high school drop-outs, the same insults in stores, the same fears for their children when they step outside.
Look at how Obama has been treated. There is no position high enough that will protect an African American from America's racism.
Bernie's emphasis on economics isn't going to make the racial problems fall into place. We should be supporting policies that put dismantling institutional racism front and center, not as a hoped-for long-term side effect of economic change. The fact that Bernie has been so reluctant to address this issue is concerning.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Who we are and how we have experienced this country . . .
And why should they? For both African-Americans and Bernie Sanders the games we played in grad school are quite real -- and defining -- and they have chosen opposite sides. Bernie Sanders is sincere and fighting many righteous fights, but for black voters he is on the wrong side of their fundamental sense of who they are in this country.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I think many are listening. To me it's a fact of American history that racial and economic issues are distinct matters. That's why they're two different words! Excellent article. Thanks for sharing it.
From that article:
Let me be very, very clear: I am definitively not claiming that Sanders is biased or racially insensitive. His record is clear, of supporting racial justice going back to the 1960s, when he participated in the March on Washington. And many efforts since then.
Nevertheless, his great issue is still economic, not racial; it defines him. And for those who look at issues through another prism, that emphasis is not what they are looking for. A recent New York Times article analyzing the lack of excitement about Sanders in the black community argued that a leading reason for this phenomenon was that he comes from a state that is 95 percent white and has not built up a record of championing black causes. But without noticing it, the article's authors also showcased the priority of class over race. Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager, argued, "his message -- the need for more good-paying jobs, and opening up higher education regardless of wealth and family background -- will have strong appeal with African-Americans and other voters." Note the language: His candidate would knock down barriers based on "wealth and family background." Those stemming from race would drop as well, in the course of this struggle, but they would not be the primary focus. That won't fly among black voters, who see things very differently.
Yet Weaver accurately represents his candidates understanding of what challenges are most important in America today. According to the New York Times' article,
Mr. Sanders, in a recent interview, said he believed his call for a 'political revolution' to change an array of politics, such as ending tuition at public colleges, could win over black voters in the months ahead. Clearly in Sanders' understanding of how the world works class trumps race, and blacks will recognize that over time. Except in reality they don't and they won't, because of their life experiences and history in the United States.
And that creates an enormous problem for the Sanders campaign. African-Americans are clearly one of the most important voting blocs in the Democratic coalition. Yet the first paragraph of the New York Times' article ended with, "Black voters have shown little interest in him (i.e. Sanders)."
And why should they? For both African-Americans and Bernie Sanders the games we played in grad school are quite real -- and defining -- and they have chosen opposite sides. Bernie Sanders is sincere and fighting many righteous fights, but for black voters he is on the wrong side of their fundamental sense of who they are in this country.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)Unless his fear is a great many of his supporters will be "turned off" by a very strong message to the African American community, i.e. acknowledging the tremendous difference between white and black.
The overwhelming white privilege that colors the experience of every single white person including the poor ones.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I don't post in AA often, but I really wanted to say to you that I have understood very well what you and others are saying on this issue.
It all makes sense. 
Raine
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I read where I (and others) am(are) being divisive.
