African American
Related: About this forumThe lesson is clear. If you want to lead a political revolution from the left in the US
African Americans and Latinos better be part of your coalition from its earliest incarnations. They're not someone you try to pick up along the way.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but any progress toward a more just society must include the non-white segment of the population. The minority is soon to be the majority in many states.
Absent massive voter fraud and disenfranchisement, the GOP may fail to win any Presidential elections at this point.
But picking up and retaining support means actually accomplishing things for the supporters.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)obstruction comes from. Latinos, for instance, may have been mad at the lack of progress on comprehensive immigration reform, and some of their irritation was aimed at the President, the lions share of their ire continues to be aimed at the group that is actually stopping the progress, the Republicans. And we can see from what that part of the political spectrum in the US nominated to be their Presidential nominee what they think of Latinos and immigration reform.
Same thing with most issues of import to the African American community and the rest of the issues important to Latinos.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You go far enough left and you're in authoritarian right territory. This is a guy who, in his early years, wanted the government to regulate how many kinds of deodorant were "allowed" to be sold in stores (too much variety was confusing, or something), and who wanted government to control television content. He wrote SCREEDS about this shit.
He thought--no doubt because his constituency fits the mold--that he could run the ball up the middle, and snatch up all those Angry White Men, Fred Lunchbox and Harry Feedcap, those beer drinkin', gun ownin', grumbling guys who are "dissatisfied" for this reason or that. He thought he could marry them to the dewy-eyed idealistic youth who love the idea of "the rich" paying off their debts, but don't realistically envision the day when they might be the ones doling out the cash. He thought that his economic policy vision could solve all woes, including the woes that one endures if one is blessed with more melanin than the cop who is stopping you for no damn reason. He knew nothing of "inner city schools," he knew nothing about "food deserts," and "banking deserts" and "economic opportunity deserts." He thought everything could be solved with a fifteen dollar minimum wage across the country, from Mississippi to NYC, and by preventing "those foreigners" from "takin' our jerbs."
He looked at everything through the eyes of a seventy four year old white man with some old school ideas--and it showed. That's why he didn't cut it. He's not a mean guy, but he lacks true empathy and understanding of lives not like his own. He thinks that if HE thinks it's good, it IS good. He believes he is the default. He just can't relate to experiences that he has not endured. He tried, after BLM stumbling and other tone-deaf comments, but you could tell he wasn't really feeling it. He'd have to do a Trading Places Dan Ackroyd/Eddie Murphy switch--only with a black or latina WOMAN--to get the spirit, I think.
It's not surprising that he has so few friends in Congress. The fact that he could only get a few of them to pledge to serve as a super delegate on his behalf is probably the biggest alarm bell of all. If your co-workers, your own peers, won't back you, then they just might know something worth knowing....
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a reasonable argument, especially to anyone who has read some of the stuff people have written on this board during this primary season!
msongs
(67,371 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Of course, all those people on the unemployment line from Burlington College, to say nothing of the loss of revenue to businesses in the area from students who are no longer attending, might make the whole process a wash.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)He is saying that our priorities of a nation are screwed up. That doesn't mean that he thinks we should regulate how many choices are available, simply that our priorities are screwed up when we have so many options for some people, and such extreme poverty for others.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's criticizing private industry. In the land of the free, if you want to make the same damn thing everyone else is making, and sell it, Bernie Sanders or the US government should stay the hell out of it. If it's not a public safety matter, at any rate. He's putting people down for wanting a choice of what HE regards as a "mundane" item. However, if you are chemically sensitive, say, or stink like a skunk, maybe you just might need a "specialty" deodorant. It's not his f-ing job to tell stores how many of a product they can stock, or to put people down for either making the products or liking a wide choice.
In countries where there are few choices, there's little difference between the rich and poor--thing is, the rich are, in those places, by most world measures, also poor as catshit. They might have a larger mud hut and make twenty cents more a month or something, but they aren't living large. You can't count the uber-rich in these places (like, say, VZ) because they hide their money abroad and can leave if things get bad at a moment's notice.
America has never been about "shared misery" and that does seem like his priorities. We can move forward with improved social services without having to deny people their deodorant or wide TV choices. It's not a zero sum deal.
Of course, he's not living like a poor fellow these days--he makes six times the median income of his state, and who knows what his investments are creating...we won't know, either, because he won't release his taxes.
It just seems a little "Serfs and Lords" to me, his attitude.
Response to MADem (Reply #3)
Poincare This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)mercuryblues
(14,525 posts)somebody's feelings. Don't worry though, 8 posts in 16 years a member. It will take him 2 years before he responds.
What I want to know is how in the hell that shit passed a jury? Attacking a DU member in a protected group? Oh. wait. the op does not put Bernie in a positive light. Bob's last fuck you before they run off to their tree fort.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I imagine I drew some unlucky straws....?
I should think that would be a slam dunk. Wonder if any of the jurors who voted to leave that thing are even ELIGIBLE to post in this group?
Your last couple of lines, though, made me laugh, so I'm glad it didn't get hidden--the visual is magnificent!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Those words have legal definitions.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And one that is not even remotely close to reality.
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)uponit7771
(90,304 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)Bernie has always been more of an observer and a critic - always from a safe vantage point and in a receptive echo chamber - than an actual actor in the thick of things.
To his credit, he became a risk-taker during this primary season. But he forgot that one must have actual time in the trenches to build a winning coalition.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and somewhere near the front lines ... back in the 60s.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)lest we forget ....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)recollection!
But per Cato the Elder, I could perhaps be forgiven ...
all american girl
(1,788 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)I think HRC had done an enormous amount bridge building with minority leaders since 2008 in very practical terms (State Dept jobs to high qualified POC and Foundation support to very deserving initiatives) as well as symbolic moments. Plus there was the support from President Obama. I'm sure HRC was sincere, but it was also good politics.
And I think Bernie had no coalition when he started out. He was trying to pick up everyone along the way. Some came along easily (people like him), some came along, and some had little use for him.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)as well. None of this I want free this and free that. You tell us how you going to keep our water safe, tell me how you going to help fund our schools, you tell me that you're going to restore the voting rights of ex-cons, you going to help increase the job rate in the black community. You do that and I see more than lip service from you and you got my vote
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)That would be the person I would follow.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)B) Often the message is a result of the experiences of the messenger, and that person has resonance with a broader coalition than John Q. Whiteguy, so yes.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)B) We disagree that it should matter, but that's OK. Everyone's experiences are there own and to discount someone's experiences, especially if you may not be sure what they are, because of their skin color seems wrong to me.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)and not attempting to preserve white feelings. By displaying the desire to speak from a perspective that "all is equal" in terms of who leads, or why someone may be better equipped to speak on experiences, your "full awareness" seems short on self-reflection.
To speak of someone "discounting" someones experience because they are white, which is what you are doing, is to misunderstand, profoundly, the discussions in this group. The voices of POC are "discounted" so low in American society, and white voices are "marked-up" constantly, in value.
I made a simple happy comment about what I feel would benefit a left-wing movement in the future, and you are continuing to derail this thread. Why, I can guess.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)I would recommend updating the Statement of Purpose as all it currently says is:
"Discuss topics and issues which affect the African-American community. DUers from all races are welcome to participate."
I don't think it is the responsibility of anyone to preserve anyone's feelings. I just disagree with outright ignoring someone who may have an excellent message because of their skin color. Pick whichever shade you want, it's wrong. I don't care who says the right things, as long as they say it and live it.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Your comments say more about you than they do the person you attempting to engage. I hope whatever audience you're putting this little performance on for is enjoying this more than we are.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and would resist making any kind of change.
But that said ...
I would strongly suggest you re-read what Starry Messenger wrote, as it doesn't resemble anything about ignoring someone who may have an excellent message because of their skin color.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Believe it or not, if you're not of a certain background or lack experience/education working and dealing with and struggling to gain solidarity with people of said background, then the message that may seem "excellent" to you will come off as patronizing and dismissive to us. Honestly, check your fucking privilege, and that goes for nearly every one of you white """progressives""" who want to talk down to people and essentially imply we're being RACIST towards white people because we won't passively lap up your oh-so-progressive opinion".
POC are driving this bus now, and if you don't like it, you can go the angry white silent ****minority**** of Trump voters who are going to be politically irrelevant soon. This time, there aren't enough entitled angry white people to derail progress when they don't get catered to.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Not only can we infer that, it would seem you have purposefully ignored any discussion or reading on why having a diverse workplace or organization is beneficial.
I doubt many politically active minorities would be in a similar position.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)that frustrates so many of us. You act like we aren't intelligent enough to see what is going on. I really wish you leave the group
MADem
(135,425 posts)Of America.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...but no one's experience or message should be written off because of their skin color.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Or their orientation, or religion, or lack thereof.
Sadly, it's been the default for most of our history that only the "family man" caucasian male is "qualified" to lead the nation. We finally challenged that eight years ago--and what a wonderful result.
I'm glad that paradigm is being challenged by exceptional individuals.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)If you don't know what i mean, catch the URL at my sig line.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)is that you better make as sure as you can that the voter validation and vote-counting process are fair and VERIFIABLE. At present this is not so in America so it's pretty much impossible for a new candidate like Bernie and especially one that is so strongly opposed by the corporate and financial powers that be to succeed in his REVOLUTION, at least not in one try.
Obama had a lot of financial support from Wall Street and won by what I think was probably an unexpectedly large margin so it was hard for the machine makers or the people programming or hacking the voting machines or diverting the vote total feed to a man in the middle as Rove did in OH 04 or etc. etc. etc. to do their little magic show.
Until the vote counting is VERIFIABLE, I don't think there's a chance for somebody like Bernie to win. I wish I would turn out to be wrong, but I don't think so. If our vote had been verifiable beginning in 2000, none of the losses that has occurred would have occurred. Roy Barnes, the very good and well-liked Gov in GA, would not have lost in 2002 to Sonny Perdue, a total washout as a Gov, and Max Cleland would not have lost in the same election in GA. And there are many many more cases where the result was almost certainly a fallacious one attributable to the machines.
serbbral
(260 posts)Just like Bernie should have interacted with Black and Latinos more in the past before he wanted to run for Prez, he should have been trying to change the voting system before hand if he thought it was unfair (I agree that there needs to be changes). He knew the rules before he entered the race. Waiting until the middle of an election, especially one in which YOU are the candidate to call foul win it is clear that you are the one who's losing does not look good at all. It just makes you look like a sore looser, plain and simple.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)White people alone can't win the presidency anymore. The times they have a'changed.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)When it is a revolution, the people will join. Not before.
Number23
(24,544 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,968 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)So will other African-Americans for Bernie. I wonder how Hillary's "revolution" will work out for AA's, because we didn't fare too well with her husband's. Thanks for whitesplainin' though. I am sure others will applaud this irony.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)what I am talking about and pretending you dont know how the African American community has overwhelmingly voted for Hillary.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Well said, steven.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The inane arguments, the straw men, the personal attacks, the mean spiritedness, the gaslighting.
Enough!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Black folks DO have out outliers ... just like every other group.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)gain numerous official endorsements from powerful white establishment Democratic politicians.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)for the sole purpose of embarrassing yourself completely?
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)Last time it was quite the drama and they just deleted their thread.
That person is never just here for the convo.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Where as you are just the Ban Hammer Jammer. And I truly do understand that sometimes that's the only course of action to take.
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,223 posts)WhiteTara
(29,694 posts)I was in deep despair and I heard Al Sharpton on the radio giving a speech and I knew that we were to win,it would be through the strength of African Americans.
Cha
(296,893 posts)throughout this campaign. And, it's soooo obvious!
Thank you!