African American
Related: About this forum*** Posted to the African-American Group***
I've been thinking about the Stockholm Syndrome post(s). In the latest incarnation of the OPs, someone replied with an assertion that the Stockholm Syndrome posts are like the "What's the matter with Kansas: Voting against their interests" posts ... and responded, thusly:
we (including myself) have been telling "Kansas" (the stand in for white, poor, working class) that they are voting against their interests by voting republican.
(BTW, I stopped doing it when I recognized how arrogant and ignorant it was for me to tell a group, that I am not a part of, what their interests are/are not. Hell, "Kansans" told us very clearly where their interests lie ... Their voting told us that: maintaining the racial/gender/Heterosexist status quo (or, taking it back to the "good ole days", where Blacks and Womens and Gays knew their place) was more important to them, than putting more $$$ in their pocket.)
But, telling someone they are voting against their interests is very different from calling them Stockholm Syndrome Sufferers ... the former indicates they are making a "bad" or, even, "stupid" choice, that can be fixed with more information or better "right" thinking; while, the latter can't be (completely) fixed with more information or "right" thinking" because the subject is psychically damaged.
Oh ... And it hasn't escaped me that the original Stockholm Syndrome sufferer invective(s) was directed at Black folks (and the LGBTQ ... NWB) and its current incarnation is directed at "the working class", i.e., the poor, a group that we are constantly reminded as being disproportionately Black; whereas, the "fixable" problem, was/is directed at ... well ... "Kansas."
And, I will add in this OP: I think this my last point, is WHY the first series upset me so much ... it took the latest incarnation to pull things together for me.
mcar
(42,210 posts)I am appalled that this nonsensical "issue" has been brought up again on DU. And survived a jury alert 5-2 (ok, that doesn't surprise me ).
God, this idiocy makes this white Southern Democrat female of " a certain age" sick.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)ALL the frustrated smilies...... Oh wait, it needs an eyeroll too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)A non-typing finger. That would fully express my thoughts.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)They can read between the lines.
A bunch of pitiful attention-trolls who are sooooo bad at politics, they can't figure out that insulting the people you want to support your candidate is counter productive.
I give up on trying to explain common decency to them, but anyone with a few IQ points to rub together should be able to figure out that what they are doing is working agains THEIR OWN self interest I guess they like feeling superior more than actually winning. Sound like another group we know about? Hmmmm...
betsuni
(25,138 posts)An eyeroll is worth a thousand words.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)that's really my most pressing question out of this primary.
also fuck anyone who calls this stockholm syndrome, i call it living in reality syndrome.
also that was an excellent reply.
incidentally the number of times i have been told that i am being racist against white men during this primary, is astounding.
(sorry about the weirdly disjointed thoughts)
PB57
(2 posts)Dear all,
I am author of the piece which was originally published by Common Dreams. Thank you for taking the time to discuss and critique the article. Firstly, as I posted elsewhere on this site (I am new to Democratic Underground) the article was in no way meant to echo any previous posts that used the Stockholm syndrome as a means for reinforcing and perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes or assumptions. I was completely unaware of this history, and I apologize for any unintended offense. Further, 1StrongBlackMan I think you raise important points and again I appreciate your insights on the piece. My aim in writing the article was to highlight how if a grassroots progressive movement is going to achieve mass success, it must not dismiss the passionate feelings many people across demographics have for mainstream Democratic politicians and leaders. Rather, it should engage with them and offer a stronger affective narrative detailing why a different strategy would be more effective for achieving real tangible social change.
Indeed, I feel that this dynamic is not limited to Clinton supporters. It was profoundly disconcerting, for instance, how a large number of Sanders' supporters did not critique him for not taking more seriously Ta-nehisi Coates' call for reparations. Indeed Coates, both in his original article in The Atlantic and then in a wide ranging interview on Democracy Now - set out how the government could create a program of direct financial repreations for black citizens who due to racial discrimination were barred from buying a home in a certain area. Moreover, he ignored how universal programs such as the New Deal were historically always exclusionary to non-whites. The fact that so many people "feelin the Bern" did not press harder on him sooner and more forcefully to address these blindspots showed how their own passionate attachment may have limited the appeal of their "political revolution".
I would like to reiterate though my sincere apologies for any unintended consequences my article created as well as once again thank all of you for taking the time to constructively discuss this article.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Apparently, you got caught in the cross-fire of some on-going history. Please know, that I did not read the article beyond the title line because of that history.
I will how go back and read the piece ... though I suspect I will have problems with it. You are using the term "Stockholm Syndrome", a theory of a (negative) psychological phenomenon to describe/characterize people holding political differences.
It is wrong for those DUers that use it to disparage African-Americans; it was wrong to ask "What's the Matter with Kansas"; and, it is wrong to entitle an Opinion Piece, "The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome", with the sub-title(?), "New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for those holding their progress captive", as in each case, it assumes that the speakers issue priorities are the same as those being "held hostage"; but, in the worst case, the use of the term connotes that the speakers issue priorities are "better" for those being "held hostage" ... "otherwise, why would they vote to hurt themselves?"