From the Guardian:
A group of young black men were incorrectly arrested on suspicion of firearm possession during a protest in Ferguson, Missouri, as a group of white militiamen, armed with rifles and wearing body armour and camouflage, claimed they had been granted permission to walk through the protests by police officers. …
… On Monday night, a group of at least three black men who were standing by a car next to a hair salon on West Florissant Avenue were arrested after a phalanx of St Louis County police surged towards them, using pepper spray and batons. A spokesman for the police department told the Guardian by email on Tuesday that officers had received information “that the occupants or folks near that vehicle were possibly armed with handgunsâ€.
But the spokesman later confirmed that none of those arrested during the swoop were in possession of any weapons.
The treatment of these suspects, who were wrestled to the ground and placed in plastic flexicuffs, came in seemingly stark contrast to a group of white militiamen, who arrived at the protest at around 1am, after the arrests occurred, carrying loaded M-15 rifles with several magazine cartridges strapped across their body armour.
So, yes, white guys from out of town are allowed to strut around with assault rifles while black men are wrestled to the ground and handcuffed in their own neighborhood on suspicion that they might be armed. We’re not looking at equal treatment under the law, I don’t think. If Ferguson residents took to calling themselves a militia and marched around visibly armed to the teeth, would the cops leave them alone? Um, probably not. For the record, Ferguson police say the Oath Keepers did not have permission to patrol the streets with guns. But neither were they arrested.
Lots of other people have been arrested in Saint Louis County in the past few days, including:
The philosopher Cornel West was among those arrested, as were prominent Black Lives Matter protesters DeRay McKesson and Johnetta Elzie, according to reports. The Reverends Renita Lamkin and Osagyefo Sekou were also reportedly arrested. Rev. Lamkin, an African Methodist Episcopal church pastor, and Rev. Sekou, a pastor from the First Baptist Church in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, have been prominent figures in protests in Ferguson since Michael Brown was shot by police officer Darren Wilson last August.
They were arrested while standing on the steps of the federal courthouse, which usually isn’t a criminal act. The federal courthouse I know of is near downtown St. Louis, not in Ferguson, so I assume these activists can’t be said to have been instigating riots in Ferguson by standing on steps.
Since I live in a Buddhist temple with no television I don’t always know what’s going on on the tube. But it seems to me we’re not hearing as much about these events as we should be hearing.
There’s lots of bickering about #BlackLivesMatter on the web, but it’s all about Bernie Sanders. I personally think #BLM badly violated my Bigger Asshole rule by hijacking and taking over a couple of Sanders events. The fact that you can find thousands of discussion threads on #BLM and Bernie and practically nothing about Cornel West being arrested for standing on the steps of a federal courthouse rather proves my point. Stupid protesting is worse for your cause than not protesting at all. We’re just pissing each other off and having the wrong conversation.
What happened in Seattle was an embarrassment to the tradition of public protest. It was a hysterical piece of performance art that accomplished absolutely nothing toward whatever goals its performers sought to achieve. Rage is not an excuse. Frustration is not an excuse. This was a simple act of public vandalism, aimed (again) at the wrong target. I have been to a bunch of rallies already in this godforsaken campaign. If the two principals here had tried this at any Republican rally; if they had tried it at any rally for any candidate of the party that largely has supported the militarized state of American policing, that more than any other political institution has worked to create the climate of The Other by which Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are thugs while the people who killed them are blameless victims; if they had tried this at a Republican rally, they’d have been hauled off in handcuffs within five minutes, if they were allowed into the hall at all. This is taking advantage of the openness of a campaign that is overwhelmingly sympathetic to your goals, instead of bringing your fight to the politicians who actively oppose you, because it’s easier to do. Consider me unimpressed by the courage involved. I feel absolutely no compunction about saying that this “action” was stupid and counterproductive. It was loud and spectacular and it accomplished nothing good.
After days of people asking why #BlackLivesMatter was targeting Bernie Sanders — and sometimes Martin O’Malley– and not Hillary Clinton, finally some BLM activists talked to Hillary Clinton. That’s right; they sat down and talked to her. What a concept. Oliver Willis, however, was not impressed.
Representatives of the Black Lives Matters movement met with Hillary Clinton, and if you actually thought this movement was about stopping black people from being killed and reforming criminal justice issues with minorities, you should not only be disappointed but disgusted. …
…All along I’ve been worried that #BlackLivesMatter was some sort of millennial-flavored angst, a generation once again letting its feelings cloud out everything else. I’ve hoped that wasn’t the case. I hoped that what we’ve been seeing is about getting actual change to happen, the sausage making boring stuff that past movements – women’s rights, minority rights, gay rights – got done that have made America a better country now than it used to be.
Perhaps this exchange has been mis-characterized. God, I hope so. Because if this is accurate, if its about feelings and notions and not laws and rules and policies, the movement is doomed.
The Clintons pushed all those horrible Tough On Crime policies in the ’90s that massively increased incarceration of black people.
Bernie Sanders is one of very few people who objected to those policies at the time and has never stopped objecting to them. Contrary to the press (and BLM) narrative, he didn’t add racial issues to his speeches, he was saying that stuff all along.
My impression is that there’s a lot of pent-up rage against white liberals who don’t always “get it” or come through when needed, and Bernie Sanders’s supporters — who do sometimes come across as way too ebulliently giddy about Their Guy than is emotionally healthy — push their buttons. But effective demonstrating has to be more disciplined than that.
See also: A woman of color and Washington state senator expresses huge ambivalence about Seattle.
“Misfires” what a perfect title for this subject. As I’ve said before the BLM movement would do well to find a different example of black men being murdered by the police to protest than Mike Brown. It’s not like they don’t have any other choices, seems to be at least one or two a month lately. BLM would also do themselves a huge favor by divorcing themselves from angry infantile demonstrators like Marissa Janae Johnson and Mara Jacqeline Willaford, they did neither themselves nor their organization any good by trying to humiliate one of the few politicians who is actually sympathetic to their cause. As far as the St. Louis county police allowing the Oath Keepers to roam the streets armed with assault rifles, what can I say? Apparently the second amendment and open-carry lunacy only applies to white folk?
So, a bunch of armed white guys with heads full of shite are allowed to openly carry on the street, but the mere suspicion that a small group of black guys MIGHT have guns, led to their arrests.
Yeah.
Sounds fair to me.
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, I guess the 2nd Amendment only applies to white people, right?
Are black people allowed to carry 3/5ths of a gun?
Hell, if you arrest Philosopher professors and Ministers who are black for just standing around, you really need to completely re-do your priorities.
And the BLM folks – who certainly have a more than worthy cause – are not exactly helping themselves.
To me, it seems like they’re out to get attention for attention’s sake.
Bernie was marching for Civil Rights before almost all of these folks were born!
Why not work WITH your Democratic allies to make this an issue that the GOP has to start to pay attention to?
Oh, but that’s right, CJ Roberts and the SCOTUS has said that racism is no longer an issue here in America.
And yet, for one party and one party alone, black lives like black votes, matter. And they’re the one party that will welcome you to come in, and you protest THEM?!?!?
I wish the BLM people good luck trying this at a GOP event!
They won’t even be allowed into the building, let alone close to the stage. And if they got into the building by some quirk, they’d be followed and shouted down the moment they tried to speak, and then security would probably ‘Taze’ the brothers and sisters.
MLK Jr., led marches in the heart of Dixie!
He didn’t go with a group to heckle JFK and LBJ.
MLK Jr., was a real ‘profile in courage.’
Shouting down people who marched with him because it’s easy, doesn’t exactly qualify you for a ‘profile in courage’ award.
Black lives DO matter.
But so does how you try to spread your message.
NPR says the local officials are trying to get rid of the Oath fascists, but their hands are tied because of open carry laws. Totally disingenuous, if you ask me. It’s a state of emergency; confiscate their weapons and see how the babies like a police boot on the back of their necks. Or better yet: confiscate the weapons, politely escort them out of town, and start treating everybody with more dignity.
Tom_b — I completely agree that there’s no excuse for letting those goons stroll around with their assault security blankets. Talk about provocation!
I personally think #BLM badly violated my Bigger Asshole rule by hijacking and taking over a couple of Sanders events.
I agree..That was a disgraceful scene. Those two women who commandeered the microphone were obnoxious bitches. If that’s the kind of behaviour that BLM puts forth to get heard…then they are going to meet with some stiff resistance.. It has nothing to do with the cause, but everything to do with their tactics and delivery. It’s just repulsive behaviour. I understand their message, but acting that way is a major turnoff. I hope they don’t think they scored some sort of a victory…because they lost more than they gained in my eyes and I’m sure in the eyes of many others.
“As I’ve said before the BLM movement would do well to find a different example of black men being murdered by the police to protest than Mike Brown.”
As I like to say: You would do well to go fuck yourself.
1. I assume the reason activists haven’t targeted Hillary so vigorously is because of her Secret Servic detail.
2. I’m of two minds on the Seattle protest. On the one hand, I’m never going to concern troll BLM on their tactics. If it was my kids, neighbors’ kids, etc. being butchered with impunity on the streets, I’d probably be be ready to organize violent resistance to the police. Disrupting some political rallies is really small potatoes compared to the literal life and death nature of the problem, and all of this hand wringing by liberals, and the visceral response by the white liberals in Seattle, proves once again that a whole bunch of “progressives” are giving themselves far too much credit by calling themselves “allies,” and instead proving the entire premise behind the disruptive protests. On the other hand, the Seattle protests don’t seem to have been organized in any way beyond a couple of individuals, unlike the huge action at Netroots, and that makes a big difference in the ability to claim legitimacy.
3. It seems to me that the “bigger asshole” theory doesn’t work here: If the goal was to get the Sanders campaign to focus more on racial issues rather than seeing them as merely a symptom of economic issues, it’s working splendidly. If it’s to focus attention on the extent to which many white self-described progressive activists don’t care about the perspective of non-whites, and the issues that uniquely plague them even when they’re unimaginably severe then it’s doing well also.
4. Willis’ critique seems almost comically petty, right down to the overwrought denunciations of “millenials” and OMGTEHKIDSTHESEDAYS!!! For one, the question seems quite fine to me: How a liberal politician feels about being largely responsible for policies that have wrecked such damage on minority communities seems perfectly relevant at this stage of the campaign, and might even be more useful than rote policy questions that a) depend on the ultimate cooperation of other parts of the government to be enacted and b) Clinton was now doubt prepped with standard answers for. Secondly….I don’t think Willis has managed to get a sitdown with CLinton to ask her his question, so it’s a bit presumptuous to tell the people who did what questions they ought to care about asking as the basis of a criticism of an entire social movement.
Brien Jackson — “Disrupting some political rallies is really small potatoes compared to the literal life and death nature of the problem, and all of this hand wringing by liberals, and the visceral response by the white liberals in Seattle, proves once again that a whole bunch of “progressives†are giving themselves far too much credit by calling themselves “allies,†and instead proving the entire premise behind the disruptive protests.”
It wasn’t just “white liberals” who were upset. Here’s a woman of color who was there, and not a Sanders supporter, who was heartbroken about it. She expresses sympathy for both sides at Seattle. She also wishes Sanders had been given a chance to respond, as do I.
Nobody likes getting sand kicked in his face. Even more, nobody likes it when someone else says they don’t have a right to be angry about getting sand kicked in his face. We all have a right to be angry about any damnfool thing we are angry about. You should know that. Seattle was a dumb stunt that had no other effect but piss a lot of people off and set groups against each other who should be on the same side. See also Oliver Willis, an African American blogger — Right Now #BlackLivesMatter Is Wasting Everybody’s Time.
Cornel West is arrested while standing on the steps of a federal courthouse in St. Louis, and we’re all arguing about the stunt in Seattle. That’s proof enough that Seattle was a stupid tactic. Public demonstrations can backfire if they aren’t thought out carefully and executed with discipline, and this one backfired big time by violating the Bigger Asshole rule. That’s the truth of it.
As I like to say: You would do well to go fuck yourself.
Oooooh, do I detect a hint of animosity?
“Those two women who commandeered the microphone were obnoxious bitches. If that’s the kind of behaviour that BLM puts forth to get heard…then they are going to meet with some stiff resistance.”
LOLOMG…is this for real? I mean what exactly is anyone going to do…get police security to shoot them?
“Oooooh, do I detect a hint of animosity?”
At people who want to concern troll disadvantaged populations who are literally fighting for their right to live, and do so in blissful ignorance of the long running underlying conditions of opression and exploitation that buoy the anger? Yes, as a matter of fact, you’re damn right you do.
LOLOMG…is this for real? I mean what exactly is anyone going to do…get police security to shoot them?
Maybe you’d do better by going back and researching the bigger asshole rule. Perhaps I was a little bit over the top in describing those women as obnoxious bitches when just the word obnoxious would have sufficed. My apologies to the women. However, my comment about the BLM movement meeting with stiff resistance is not a personal observation tied to that particular incident. It has more to do with the art of effective communication and bringing the movement forward in a positive and productive light. You can’t stuff sympathy and understanding down peoples throats. It’s just human nature to repel at the dictates of someone telling you how you should think and feel.
In regard to your comment to uncledad.. I understand his comment did circumvent the whole idea of the BLM movement..But rather than just vent your anger with a negatively aggressive comment that shed no light why didn’t you point out in a civil manner that he missed the point and take the time to illuminate the error? You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
“Maybe you’d do better by going back and researching the bigger asshole rule. ”
I’m familiar with the concept, and (as I said in a long comment still stuck in moderation) I don’t see one would apply it here: The BLM protestors demanded that Sanders put out a platform for dealing with systemic racism and criminal justice reform and…he did. They demanded his campaign spend more time focusing on racial justice matters and recognize that racial inequality isn’t merely a symptom of economic inequality, and it’s worked so far. Say what you want about the tactics, but you certainly can’t say they aren’t working.
“You can’t stuff sympathy and understanding down peoples throats. It’s just human nature to repel at the dictates of someone telling you how you should think and feel.”
Really. Just…really? They’re talking to self-styled REAL LEFTISTS* about the issue of in-your-face oppression of racial minorities up to and including widespread state sanctioned murder. One would think that “sympathy and understanding” for their cause would be a given, not something you needed endless internet concern trolling over effective communication tactics.
*At the end of the day I think that the real issue here is the sort of white liberal dude who thought Obamacare was TEH SELLOUT!!!! and isn’t ashamed of voting for Ralph Nader once again having to confront the fact that he is in no way, shape, or form THE BASE of the Democratic Party, and is in fact a pretty small minority of the party with little if any actual electoral power as a constituency. That black people (arguably the real base of the party) are disrupting his latest fantasy campaign and forcably changing the narrative/issues of the campaign just has to be infuriating.
Brien — No, the Bigger Asshole rule was violated, and #BlackLivesMatter is paying the price. The cause is just; the tactics are not.
It is hard to separate the drama queens (Oath Keepers) from the people who do have an actual issue (BLM) when the one group is always described as having military and police backgrounds and being started by a Yalie, while the other group is just people who don’t want to get shot by the police, much less by the “Constitutionalist” drama queens.
1. I’ve not only seen the Willis article, I responded to it in my comment.
2. I suppose anyone has a right to be mad that black activists won’t shut up and accept their claims to being an “ally” at face value, or being angry that social activists are trying to change the discussion in a primary election. That makes them assholes but, to be sure, they’ve got a right to it.
3. Here’s the thing about having “sand kicked in your face:” generally speaking, when someone tells you you’re an asshole your response to that depends on the extent to which you care about the other person’s opinion. It seems to me that if you’re a real “ally” who legitimately gives a shit about racial justice issues (which, seriously, ought to be the single biggest issue for liberals right now anyone under the circumstances) then they ought to listen when black activists tell them they’re being assholes and reconsider their own behavior, at least in part, rather than concern trolling people who are upset about modern day lynchings.
“Cornel West is arrested while standing on the steps of a federal courthouse in St. Louis, and we’re all arguing about the stunt in Seattle. That’s proof enough that Seattle was a stupid tactic. Public demonstrations can backfire if they aren’t thought out carefully and executed with discipline, and this one backfired big time. That’s the truth of it.”
This is ridiculous. The hell is Cornel West going to do on a courthouse steps other than get publicity? Which is fine, but it’s going to be the government, and the federal government specifically, that becomes the tool of affecting tangiable change. The most meaningful aspect of that is going to be having a Democratic President committed to bringing all the pressure they can to bear on using the federa executive branch to force change, and the BLM activists are creating a political landscape where any Democrat who wants to be the nominee is going to have to take a strong stand in favor of this. That’s activism.
“No, the Bigger Asshole rule was violated, and #BlackLivesMatter is paying the price. The cause is just; the tactics are not.”
Erm…what price? The Sanders campaign is doing everything it can to respond to them. They got a sit down discussion with Hillary Clinton. And in the most likely scenario the Democratic nominee is going to be someone who has publicly committed to using the Justice Department as a tool against local police brutality. I guess on the other hand you’ve got the same old whiny progressive set complaining about them on the internet, so sure, that’s totally a wash.
//The Sanders campaign is doing everything it can to respond to them. They got a sit down discussion with Hillary Clinton.//
The sit down with Hillary Clinton was lame and accomplished nothing. And I have had sit downs with her, too, once upon a time. It’s not that hard. They could have just made an appointment. With Sanders you managed to squeeze some clarification and expansion from him about where he already stood; whoop dee doo. The price paid for those little lumps of “success,” in loss of sympathy and goodwill, was way too high and probably will prevent #BLM from accomplishing much going forward.
Incidentally, you’re starting to remind me of the OWS supporters who were so certain that Occupy was the first blow of a revolution. Whenever I said Occupy was just copying the same mistakes of the past and wouldn’t grow into anything serious, I got blasted with rage about how I was wrong and holding them back. Except I was right. Now #BLM is capable of pulling some stunts and shouting some insults and slogans, but I’m not seeing anything else from them. It seems more an exercise in acting out frustration than actually accomplishing anything, as Oliver Willis said. Or like the often worthless Code Pink, some people are just attention junkies. An effective movement has to be smarter than this.
Brien — IMO Van Jones says what needs to be said here, in a way that could lead to building coalitions instead of setting people against each other.
Also, if you think anyone won’t get angry at being called names, whether asshole or racist, by ANYBODY, you don’t know human nature from spinach. The anger doesn’t mean one didn’t care about the other person’s opinion. The anger is a challenge to the ego we all have. As soon as the ego is threatened, the ego-armor goes up, and communication is impossible. That’s true for you; that’s true for everybody. If you begin a speech to progressives by calling them all racists, you might as well stop talking, because most of them aren’t going to hear anything else you’re going to say.
Duh.
Oath Keepers are also Bigger A-holes in this scenario, but they are not paying the price.
Nobody liked Oath Keepers to begin with; they can’t be more disliked than they already are. They’ve got nothing to “pay.”
“As I like to say: You would do well to go fuck yourself”
Have you ever bothered to read Eric Holders Justice departments findings on the Mike Brown shooting? Give it a whirl maybe then you can respond in an informed manner and not sound so ignorant!
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
I don’t want to argue about Mike Brown. Whatever happened the police still behaved abominably and Darren Wilson is a five-alarm racist. So let’s let that go.
Black Lives Matter lost my sympathy when they responded that stating that all lives matter was not good enough for them. I am an American Indian and as a result found it offensive that BLM refuses to acknowledge that all lives really do matter. Seattle and the rest of the state of Washington has a very large American Indian population that would probably want to help BLM in their cause; but, BLM appears to not care about American Indian lives either. I think they need to rethink their cause and their strategy.
Say what you want about the tactics, but you certainly can’t say they aren’t working.
Yeah, they are working on Sanders. They demanded, they demanded, they demanded and got…but meanwhile, what is not so readily visible is the fact that they are destroying the candidate that they expect will carry their banner. If Bernie can so easily be crowded out of his own platform and be left standing on the sideline looking inept, how is he going to fare when he’s got to deal with a Repuglican Congress and other powerful interests? It’s one thing to accommodate, but another to acquiesce.
Was it Ronald Reagan who said: “I’m paying for this microphone.” The point being, you can’t exhibit the qualities of leadership by having people running rough shod over you.
I’m very empathetic to the BLM movement, but if they want to make progress they should put the pressure on the Repuglican field of candidates. They are the ones who predominantly foster the racist attitudes that have taken hold in the American justice system.
My understanding is that Sanders didn’t change his platform. According to Avedon Carol the policy paper he issued wasn’t entirely new; he pulled most of it out of policy papers he already had issued. I haven’t had time to look it up, so I’ll take her word on that. I don’t think Seattle or Netroots Nation did lasting damage to Sanders’s campaign, but if it happens again he’s going to be between the proverbial rock and hard place — if he gives up the mic he looks weak; if he doesn’t he’ll get slammed for being disrespectful to black lives. I’m betting that after the backlash #BLM doesn’t do this again, unless they’re complete idiots. We’ll see if they’re complete idiots.
Imo:
To be effective, you have to draw attention to your/our cause, not yourself.
Now, there are exceptions, like MLK Jr., and Gandhi, but they were the leaders of peaceful movements, and stood out because they were exceptional leaders.
But they didn’t do it alone.
They had thousands and millions of people behind them, doing the grunt work.
When they were unjustly arrested and jailed, their cause became even more people’s cause.
BLM is an important cause. Maybe the most important cause in this country, besides not getting into another war, and not having more “Austerity” policies.
Income inequality due to race and sex, are also major problems!
We, as liberals, won’t get anywhere by telling one another to go ‘fuck ourselves.’
We are all on the same side.
Now, the question is, how do we get over 50% of the people to agree with us that black lives DO matter?
That income inequality due to race, religions, and sex matter>
This country was based on institutional racism.
We don’t change that by telling people who agree that racism is the most horrible stain on this country, by telling one another to ‘go fuck ourselves.’
One of my best friends since JHS is black, and I won’t go into details of what it was like to hang out with him in the 70’s and 80’s – and even to this day, since he married a Lebanese woman and they had a son.
Needless to say, even in Upstate NY, there were/are a lot of racist’s.
And besides, I can’t do the anatomically impossible, even if I wanted to! 😉
Them’s my $0.02 worth!
“assault security blankets” – no.
“penis extenders” – yes.
“I don’t want to argue about Mike Brown”
I agree, that is why I linked to DOJ’s report no need to argue, it’s all in the report. I just thought since I was being called a “concern troll” and told to do anatomically impossible acts that I would respond with facts!
“Whatever happened the police still behaved abominably and Darren Wilson is a five-alarm racist”
I agree 100%
More Tomfoolery from our friends the Oath Keepers! Why does this remind me of Waco, Ruby Ridge?
Bonnie, I don’t know if you’ll ever read this, but please understand what BLM actually means. It means “Black Lives Matter, TOO.” The message is NOT Black Lives Matter, and To Hell With Everyone Else.
[gratuitous insult removed; please see comment rules — maha]
Starfish — I’m not sure everyone in BLM got the same memo.
Bonnie, I don’t know if you’ll ever read this, but I have to say, BLM does NOT mean “Black Lives Matter and to Hell With Everyone Else.” It actually means “Black Lives Matter, TOO.”
BTW, I’m an extremely white guy who grew up in the Midwest. My family hated Native Americans. They still do, actually. My social circle considered Native Americans to be stupid, violent, dirty, and lazy, and these beliefs affected how my acquaintances voted. The policies they voted for absolutely hurt many Native communities. So I stand behind any minority community that pushes back against attitudes and subsequent policies that hurt those communities.
Point taken, Maha. And I used my real name this time.
Does anybody know exactly what the “Oath” is that these oath creepers are supposed to be keeping? Is it some oath made 150 years ago by Nathan Bedford Forrest?
joan…It’s the standard oath that every member of the armed forces takes upon enlistment. The problem is that it expires at the end of each enlistment. So technically it can’t be kept apart from active military service. The oath, as I understand it is made to the people of the United States to insure that the power of the military is retained in the hands of the American people.
It’s also essentially the same oath that the President of the United States takes upon being sworn in as President..except there might be a very small variation in the wording of the Presidential oath…
These nutjob oath keepers are just losers who can’t let go of the glory of their military experience. I should talk?..Last year I got Florida’s specialty license plates for Vietnam veterans for my truck…but at least I’m not a full blown glory hound who’s walking around town toting an automatic weapon thinking I’m defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Like I said in another comment.. surrendering the machismo is not easy. It’s harder to shake off than a toe nail fungus.
Maha, my original comment was rude. I agree with you there.
Your “memo” comment is another story.
I admit, I approached BLM with much trepidation. Like a lot of white people, I’ve been oblivious to my own privilege, but I feel like my eyes are opening up to different realities. I’m learning, for the first time, to shut up for a moment and listen. And then I ask members of BLM how I can help. It’s been eye-opening, and oddly exhilarating.
Participating in BLM, I have found fairness and real conversation, not the chaos and mayhem that seem to be the focus — or the invention — of the media.
One more thing. No one looks good in this. Bernie looks weak and unpresidential. The two girls made BLM look bad in the eyes of certain people, and white, progressive liberals look like hypocrites — a title I’m working like hell to avoid.
Carl — I’m old enough to have participated in some anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, so I’ve been observing demonstrations and their effects for a long time. The entire purpose of effective demonstrations is to gain attention and sympathy for your cause, so that public opinion rallies to your side. Even if you somehow get some concessions from your “target,” if you piss off the public — if you come across as the Bigger Asshole — you lose in the long run. I’ve seen this many times over the years.
And the worst thing that can happen is if the demonstrations and demonstrators themselves become The Issue. Then you’ve really lost. The stunt BLM pulled in Seattle was a disaster for them, and they can’t see it.
The other thing that disturbs me is that we should have learned 30 years ago that single-issue advocacy is our Achilles heel. In the 1970s I witnessed the Left break up into single-issue advocacy organizations that competed with each other for attention and funds. Meanwhile, the Right organized into a killer coalition and mopped the floor with us. I don’t care what the issue is; when some group demands that their issue is the only one that counts, they’ve lost me. We’re facing many crises, with the planet, with potential war in the Middle East, with income inequality, with the erosion of reproductive rights, and of course the crisis in police brutality and racial injustice. In a lot of ways they’re all connected, and it’s also the case that for a Dem to win in November 2016 the candidate must not be a single-issue candidate. He has to be able to speak to many voters on many subjects without somebody heckling him and saying, no, you can only speak to us.
And if BLM really wants to slit its own throat, if a Republican wins and they’re seen as having damaged the Dem candidate, they can kiss off any other progressive organization ever working with them.
Finally, I realize it can be a buzz to play the role of More Liberal Than Thou White Guy and Savior of the Oppressed, but I find it tiresome. I run into the type often; usually it’s just another ego trip. I don’t know you at all, and maybe that’s not true of you, of course.
“These nutjob oath keepers are just losers who can’t let go of the glory of their military experience””
Swami, from the couple of nuts that I suspect are oath-keepers that is certainly an element of their behavior. Some people join the military and or enter law enforcement with the fantasy of putting down some bad guys. When I was in the Army these guys were a definite minority, most of joined because Ronnie Raygun was POTUS and you couldn’t buy a job (I got nowhere else to go). But my guess most of these oath keepers are just good old fashion racists, much like the dimwittedteabaggers as an organized group they pretty much didn’t exist before that colored fella got elected. The thing these miscreants forgot was the oath they took only applied while they were in the service. Also they seemed to have collective amnesia about a critical line that we all swore to: “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”. Minor detail maybe?
Ok so driftglass had a post about this, and there is alot of evidence that those two “blm” activists had super strong ties to separitist groups like the nation of Islam, which is pretty right wing and funded by HL Hunt. Those groups advocated segregation taken to extremes and were against alot of the progress made on racial issues because that would bring them into the white man’s world or something.
Is any of this true? Is this a ratf**ck?
Will — I’d assume it’s a ratf**ck.
“I understand his comment did circumvent the whole idea of the BLM movement..”
I don’t think so, I do understand that young black men in this country are under siege and getting stopped by a cop is pretty much a guarantee that something bad is going to go down. I get that, yes of course black lives matter. Mike Brown’s case just don’t work, the DOJ poured over the evidence, their conclusion was that Wilson did not violate his civil rights, bad cop probably, bad policing definitely, unjustified shooting, Eric Holders DOJ said no. I’m gonna shut up now before I get twit filtered!
So we can pretty much sum up the attitude of this comment thread as:
1. Why do these uppity young black kids think the widespread lynching of people like them is so much more important than issues x,y, and z?
2. These black people are too stupid to see that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for them.
3. The black people don’t get to make their own decision about which candidate best speaks to their concerns and will best represent them.
“And if BLM really wants to slit its own throat, if a Republican wins and they’re seen as having damaged the Dem candidate, they can kiss off any other progressive organization ever working with them. ”
In all seriousness….do you actually understand the nature of the issue underlying BLM? Because if this statement is actually true, all it’s proving is that the “progressive movement” is completely worthless, and should be burned to the ground and rebuilt wholesale.
“the “progressive movement†is completely worthless, and should be burned to the ground and rebuilt wholesale”
Hey Brien, you sound like a spoiled little boy, good luck with the teabaggers then, let us know how that works out for you!
“Hey Brien, you sound like a spoiled little boy, good luck with the teabaggers then, let us know how that works out for you!”
I mean, are you *proud* of yourself? Really, are you? Do you feel good about yourself when you’re done with these conversations? I’m not exaggerating this at all: What’s happening now to black Americans at the hands of police officers is nothing short of the same sort of violence previously manifested in lynchings and Jim Crow. How exactly could anyone who considers themselves a liberal support a so-called progressive movement that abandons those people in a fit of petty rage because they’re angry that black activists don’t share their doey-eyed obsessive love for an individual politician?
“Black Lives Matter, Too” would have been clearer to hearers unfamiliar with the background of the phrase. It is almost an “in group” speech form. Or at least it was when it started. Activists and followers of politics tend to expect that the general population keeps up at least minimally with what is going on. That is not the case at all. I think we have an issue of literalism versus specificity. The phrase gives a perfect in for the bigots to exaggerate it as reverse racism. It also is taken literally by those coming to it with little or no backgrounding on its origins. The idea of an implied emphasis or an elided “too” just does not pop into consciousness of people who live lives of white privilege (don’t waste my time on a diversion to that topic) that they are not even going to admit exists in most cases. I do cat rescue. If I post CATS MATTER I will guarantee you a ton of FB folks posting how DOGS MATTER, and that I am a speciesist or unaware or uncaring or hateful or whatever. A phrase that is deeply meaningful for those who have awareness, thoughtfulness and abstract reasoning function does not stand a chance in the ears of many other groups too angry, distracted or literal-minded or prejudiced to think about it and why it is being said. It might be discomfitting.
Bernie Sanders’s supporters feel backstabbed. Understandably. Clinton supporters are satisfied with an after-the-fact chat. Predictably. The ReTeaVangeliKlan are overjoyed by both ends of the stick Democrats are beating themselves with.
uncledad … What I meant by that comment is that by focusing on Michael Brown as not being the perfect poster child for the BLM movement you were diminishing the larger picture of the overall injustice suffered by blacks regarding policing in America. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent, but judging by Brien’s angry reply to your comment I assumed that had to be the reason to elicit such an angry reply.
I remember with Trayvon Martin the comment about him having a grill, so therefore he was a thug.
It’s like the whole black culture is perceived as criminal and to try to overcome that perception by a case by case basis is just an exercise in futility and narrows the understanding of the issue.
Brien, you really need to learn how to multitask issues better.
For instance, I think Global Warming is a higher priority than any other issue on the planet including police shooting of black people, because you know, the planet. Listen to me! If you put BLM over my issue then you hate the planet. I mean, you’re being ridiculous! You’re doing it wrong! Why do you hate the planet, Brien.
Maybe it’s just me but BLM and its defenders seem to be building straw men. Did ANY of their critics say black people need to be quiet and never criticize liberals? It’s the childish behavior, counterproductive tactics, and vague ideology I have problems with. What did that stunt at the Sanders rally accomplish? Getting him to clarify positions he’s always had? A meeting with him could’ve done that. Hillary (diabolical genius that she is) sat down with them. She latched onto the message without breaking a sweat.
I have yet to see the pro BLM side explain why the GOP is immune to protest so far. Personally I don’t get why stopping someone from speaking at their own event is a smart thing to do. But if you’re going to do that: target the right people. Target both parties. BLM made fools of themselves and their attempts at damage control have been pathetic.
In the interviews I’ve seen with BLM activists, they’re unrepentant, and have learned nothing. I have a feeling they’re going to double down on this. What great white supremacist politician will feel the wrath of BLM next? Howard Dean? Bill de Blasio? This would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high and the cause wasn’t so just.
“Maybe it’s just me but BLM and its defenders seem to be building straw men. Did ANY of their critics say black people need to be quiet and never criticize liberals? ”
Um…yes. FFS, the single most common response to the activists is “don’t you understand that BERNIE is the absolute most bestest candidate who cares the most about criminal justice reform and marched with Martin Luther King and gosh darnitt why aren’t you samrt enough to see that Bernie is the best?!?!” There is absolutely an assertion in this line of argument that black activists, and black people more generally, don’t get to make their own decisions about which candidate best speaks to them or is likely to be the best on these issues.
” It’s the childish behavior, counterproductive tactics, and vague ideology I have problems with. ”
I rest my case.
We’re not saying that here. I’m not on board with any of the Dem candidates yet, and I don’t know if anyone else is either. Why don’t you respond to what people are saying here, and not on what hypothetical people you run into elsewhere are saying? That would help.
Whether your behavior is childish is a subjective opinion, of course. At my age, I think most peoples’ behavior is childish, but that’s me. However, BLM tactics ARE counterproductive, and I’m not aware that they have an ideology beyond insulting people or have produced any policy suggestions. So, yeah, that’s vague.
Brien — I just wrote a long post on maternal and infant mortality in the U.S. Mothers and babies die at much higher rates here than in other developed countries, and a disproportionate number of those mothers and babies are African American. The maternal mortality rate for African American women in the U.S. is three to four times higher than it is for white women, and this has been true going back several decades. Black babies are at least two to three times more likely to die in their first year than white babies. So we’re looking at a lot of lost life here.
Do those lives not matter?
Van Jones recently said,
Jones supported the BLM demonstrations, but he also stresses the importance of actually electing Democrats. It won’t do you a damn bit of good to torpedo Democratic candidates and wring concessions out of them if they don’t get bleeping elected. And you’ve got a lot of people who have dedicated years of their lives to one cause or another, and success hinges on electing progressives to carry things through. That’s why I’m saying that if BLM ends up costing elections, they will not be worked with in the future. The same thing happened to Ralph Nader and some Marxist groups who pried themselves into the anti-Iraq War “movement” a few years ago, note. You are absolutely right to call attention to what others don’t see. But if BLM trashes other peoples’ efforts in the process, nothing good will come of this. And people have every right to be pissed about whatever they’re pissed about.
I realize white people can be oblivious to what black people are going through, because we’re not experiencing it and seeing it. And men are oblivious to what women go through, and able-bodied people are oblivious to what us gimpy people go through. Etc. This is how it is.
But I would say to Van Jones that women’s health issues are not separate from black issues, because the data clearly show something really wrong is going on with mothers and babies that is costing African-American life, and nobody knows why.
A lot of what’s going on in Dem politics is an attempt to win back the white working class, which used to vote with Democrats fairly reliably but stampeded to the Republicans during the Nixon Administration and after. I know we’ve had this conversation before, and I still say it’s naive to assume progress is going to be made without electing a whole lot more progressives to Congress, and electoral reality says that’s going to take winning back some of the white working class votes. So a lot of rhetoric is being aimed at them, and I understand that African Americans are ticked off about it. So changes must be made. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t ultimately all in this together.
Maha: Wow! Looks like you picked a good topic judging by the number of comments and the back and forth conversation.
I do agree that most people’s behavior is childish (at times) and that includes me. Even though I have reached the age where wisdom is supposed to be settling in, it is still difficult. I probably will have to return for another 1000 incarnations.
grannyeagle — truth be told, I’ve reached the age at which I think I have a right to be childish. I’ve been the responsible/adult/reliable/mature/ biting-my-tongue one for years. Bleep that. If I want to be sulky and talk back to people, I do it.
“Common response?” From whom, Brien? Exactly who said we’re not smart enough to make our own decisions? This is what I was talking about. When asked for specifics you deliver yet another rant about “them” keeping you down. I want names & links to quotes. If what you say is true that shouldn’t be hard to do.
Yes there are people who say Bernie is the best. They’re called supporters of a candidate for office. They believe their guy or girl has your best interests at heart. They would like your support. But no one’s forcing you to support anyone. Telling you that they know what’s best for you? Once again: who is doing this?
And as Barbara pointed out:other than angry performance art what does BLM actually do? What specific policy objectives do they have? Do you know? Do you even care? If you do, why haven’t you mentioned any yet? That’s what I meant by vague ideology. At least the Sanders supporters can list SPECIFIC things their guy stands for (on paper anyway). This is what he wants to do. This is what it will cost. This is how he’ll pay for it.
And as an adult THAT appeals to me more than sloganeering and blind rage. I’m not crazy about Sanders. But I’m willing to listen because he has positions I can actually look into. Funny I have yet to have any white liberal tell me that I can’t decide such things for myself. That I should just shut up and get on board.
I could be wrong about BLM. They could have something other than youthful angst to show me. It would be nice if someone on your side would show me they have the brains and temperament to match their passion and righteous anger.
BTW “I rest my case?” What case? You have to have a case before you can rest it. At no point did I say you can’t make your own decisions. At no point did I attempt to force you to support any candidate. At no point did I say you don’t have the right to protest or be angry. Isn’t that what you’ve been whining about here? What I said was your tactics accomplished nothing of value and your ideology is vague. If I’m wrong about that the smart thing to do is show me WHY I’m wrong. Point by point. Not declare victory and quit.
“How exactly could anyone who considers themselves a liberal support a so-called progressive movement that abandons those people in a fit of petty rage because they’re angry that black activists don’t share their doey-eyed obsessive love for an individual politician?”
Could you please post a link to or quote a “liberal” politician who said lets abandon the Black Lives Matter movement, that would really clear things up! Here is an example of petty rage but I’m not sure its the one your looking for?
Maha: truth be told, when I worked as a nurse, I always loved the spunky old people best, especially the females. When my mother was close to her transition, she was admitted to the hospital for dehydration. When the nurses came in to do something or just check in on her, she ordered them out of the room saying: Get out of here and leave me alone, I’m going to die. Of course, the nurses and my sister decided differently but 6 months later, she did indeed die. After all, she was 94 yo and she decided it was time.
FWIW, I don’t think BLM is hurting Sanders at all, really. The Netroots protest might have in the very short term, but only because *Sanders’ response* was so godawfully bad. Otherwise, there’s only upside here if we assume that BLM is acting in earnest: Sanders absolutely needs to improve his poll numbers with non-whites to have any realistic chance at the nomination, and if he develops a narrative where he’s seen as listening and responding vigorously to the concerns of black voters it can only help him.
I think Sanders is an extreme long shot for the nomination, anyway; my chief hope is that he pulls the rest of the field further Left. And I want America to hear what he has to say in debates. The real problem is that there are lots of white progressives who don’t trust BLM and will likely pull away from supporting black activism until their egos stop hurting. And BLM still isn’t showing me that it can play well with others.
“Whether your behavior is childish is a subjective opinion, of course. At my age, I think most peoples’ behavior is childish, but that’s me. However, BLM tactics ARE counterproductive, and I’m not aware that they have an ideology beyond insulting people or have produced any policy suggestions. So, yeah, that’s vague.”
As an aside, I think this demonstrates a pretty blinkered view of history that illustrates why black activists are much interested in “discussions” with white liberals. Boycotting buses and sitting in at lunch counters were highly disruptive tactics, and King was more than happy to blast “white moderates” who were concern trolling the civil rights movement over the civility of their tactics or the obsessiveness with which they regarded their “single issue.” There’s no material difference here.
Brien Jackson — There’s a huge material difference. One, MLK never outright kicked the progressives of his day in the face and called them names, nor did he ever disrupt someone else’s political event in a way that made him look like the Bigger Asshole. Rosa Parks made the Montgomery bus system into the Bigger Asshole. The people who tried to order meals at segregated lunch counters made the store personnel look like the Bigger Asshole. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to tell you. MLK knew what he was doing; he was the primary model for my Bigger Asshole theory. And MLK did speak out on other issues of his day, such as Vietnam.
Single issue advocacy wasn’t really a problem until the 1970s. The New Left was never all that tightly organized, but a lot of people advocating for a lot of issues were fellow travelers for a time (see, for example, the 1972 Democratic convention). But as the 1970s went on it all splintered into single issue groups that didn’t even communicate with each other. As I already explained, this resulted in “progressivism” being managed by no end of individual organizations with offices in Washington that were eternally competing with each other for money and attention. Meanwhile, the Right built a juggernaut of a coalition that pushed right-wing hegemony and basically pushed all of American politics further right than it’s been since the 1920s. It also had the effect of de-coupling liberal and progressive causes from party politics, which was also a huge mistake. We still haven’t made up for lost ground, but we’re slowing making progress toward pushing the Democrats left. And now you want to drag us back to being powerless? What good is that? It’s only through working together that change can be made.
Now, unless you have anything further to contribute other than venting your bottomless resentment toward white liberals, please let it drop. We get it that you hate us and think we’re clueless and lame. What you don’t get is that I, and most of us here, really want BLM to succeed. My criticism is trying to get BLM to not make the same mistakes others have made in the past, because I want BLM to succeed. If a right-wing group were doing the same thing, I’d be saying “please proceed.”
“There’s a huge material difference. One, MLK never outright kicked the progressives of his day in the face and called them names, nor did he ever disrupt someone else’s political event in a way that made him look like the Bigger Asshole. Rosa Parks made the Montgomery bus system into the Bigger Asshole. The people who tried to order meals at segregated lunch counters made the store personnel look like the Bigger Asshole. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to tell you. MLK knew what he was doing; he was the primary model for my Bigger Asshole theory. And MLK did speak out on other issues of his day, such as Vietnam. ”
I don’t think this analogy quite works, because I don’t think BLM is trying to *fight* Sanders, or any of the Democratic candidates for that matter, in the same way that the Civil Rights movement was targeting the Montgomery bus service. The goal is simply to bring more attention of the candidates they support more than not to their issue in a campaign where it really wasn’t getting much attention until Netroots. The assertion about King is really wrong though: He absolutely blasted nominally sympathetic white people who were concerning trolling the CRM over tactics.
And calling BLM “single issue advocacy” strike sme as totally missing the point for two reasons. First, obviously, is the singular gravity of the issue. If the police (or the George Zimmermans of the world, even) are allowed to shoot you with impunity, what difference do the other issues really make? Secondly, black people have good reason to be distrustful of the sort of economic populism Sanders wants to campaign on. The New Deal and postwar consensus policies we’re all longing for more or less explicitly excluded black people from benefitting, so there’s simply no reason for them to take a “rising tides raises all boats” pitch seriously.
Yes, the New Deal was racist because the only way Franklin Roosevelt could get the Dixiecrats to pass it was to make it so. But Lyndon Johnson in effect extended the New Deal to people of all races 50 bleeping years ago. Indeed, that was the primary thing that caused working class whites to defect to the Republican Party. But that also means economic populism is everybody’s issue now. I’m sorry you can’t see that. At least I’m not the only one around here who is oblivious to things.
Also, note that there are people dying because of the System other than at the hands of trigger-happy rednecks. Oblivious, much?
Just drop it, Brien, or find some other white people to hector for awhile. I’m pretty much done with it.
“The real problem is that there are lots of white progressives who don’t trust BLM and will likely pull away from supporting black activism until their egos stop hurting.”
My response is nothing more than fuck those people.
“And BLM still isn’t showing me that it can play well with others.”
In all fairness: If the issue at hand was *literally* your right to live and breathe, how nicely would you play with others?
//In all fairness: If the issue at hand was *literally* your right to live and breathe, how nicely would you play with others?//
If the people I’m “playing” with are those sympathetic to my cause and whose collaboration I need to be safe, I sure as hell wouldn’t kick sand in their faces. Duh. Just because a lot of us don’t completely understand what African Americans go through or are focused on other issues doesn’t mean we’re all in the Klan, you know. Now, unless you have anything further to add to my site than reminding us how callous and clueless we are, please give it a rest.
“If the people I’m “playing†with are those sympathetic to my cause and whose collaboration I need to be safe, I sure as hell wouldn’t kick sand in their faces.”
Based on your assertions about how these people are going to abandon BLM, the claim that they’re “sympathetic” assumes facts not in evidence methinks.
//Based on your assertions about how these people are going to abandon BLM, the claim that they’re “sympathetic†assumes facts not in evidence methinks.//
I can’t read the minds of every single person in Seattle, but the enormous majority of white progressives have been completely on the same page with African Americans on the issue of police and George Zimmerman-type brutality. The only difference is that white progressives put the brutality within a larger context of other issues that are hurting all of us. The first rift in this potential coalition I’ve seen was caused by BLM itself. From the perspective of white progressives, it’s BLM that spit on them and pushed them away. Brilliant.
So now I’m done. Thread’s over.