HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » In a now locked thread, c...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:40 AM

In a now locked thread, critical of DUers, critical President Obama ...

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I made the following statement:

It's funny ... you say, "We aren't republicans, we don't have to march in lock step", then wonder why we don't get republican results, i.e., lock-step opposition.

I understand wanting a better world; but understand ... It ain't coming yesterday. As a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement, I can attest ... It comes, in this democratic republic, in baby-steps. And, in my opinion, it is the baby-steps of progress that result in lasting change.



To which I received the following response:

But change didn't come about by itself. The Selma marches, the Stonewall riots, the march on Washington, Rosa Parks' bus boycott, all of these pivotal moments in history that accomplished for us the change that we enjoy today occurred because bold, visionary progressives refused to accept the status quo and demanded something better.


I'd like to make three observations ... First, none of the historic events were led by, or even involved, Congressional Elected figures or the President in office; and none of these events were partisan issues that would have benefitted or been harmed by congressional acting in partisan lock-step.

Secondly, none of these events resulted in the immediate and comprehensive, and most importantly, uncompromising legislative action that Progressives seem to be demanding. The things we enjoy today were built over a period of 50 years, and are continuing to evolve, with one legislative success building on the previous compromise legislative action.

Finally, you are correct ... each of these events had a spark moment; but it wasn't because some "bold, visionary progressives" did anything, except maybe to organize the critical mass of every-day, and largely APOLITICAL, disenfranchised folks, that were already taking non-legislative action.

(BTW ... the Stonewall Riots doesn't fit your bold visionary progressive argument.)

182 replies, 14308 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 182 replies Author Time Post
Reply In a now locked thread, critical of DUers, critical President Obama ... (Original post)
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 OP
MNBrewer Dec 2012 #1
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #5
OmahaBlueDog Dec 2012 #15
bigtree Dec 2012 #24
lunatica Dec 2012 #47
FreeState Dec 2012 #49
lunatica Dec 2012 #51
grantcart Dec 2012 #136
FreeState Dec 2012 #157
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #98
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #122
lunatica Dec 2012 #130
FreeState Dec 2012 #48
arely staircase Dec 2012 #132
Yavin4 Dec 2012 #63
MADem Dec 2012 #83
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #112
FreeState Dec 2012 #115
MADem Dec 2012 #129
FreeState Dec 2012 #135
MADem Dec 2012 #141
bigtree Dec 2012 #2
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #9
bigtree Dec 2012 #16
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #22
bigtree Dec 2012 #35
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #146
bvar22 Dec 2012 #150
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #154
bigtree Dec 2012 #164
bvar22 Dec 2012 #175
bigtree Dec 2012 #176
bvar22 Dec 2012 #178
bigtree Dec 2012 #179
tavalon Dec 2012 #165
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #3
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #6
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #8
bigtree Dec 2012 #7
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #10
bigtree Dec 2012 #12
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #14
randome Dec 2012 #42
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #52
bigtree Dec 2012 #55
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #62
bigtree Dec 2012 #67
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #75
bigtree Dec 2012 #76
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #90
randome Dec 2012 #57
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #61
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #100
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #4
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #26
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #32
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #40
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #50
Rex Dec 2012 #180
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #104
randome Dec 2012 #11
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #13
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #31
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #36
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #41
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #58
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #64
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #156
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #160
ywcachieve Dec 2012 #17
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2012 #18
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #34
Skittles Dec 2012 #89
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #95
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2012 #96
ywcachieve Dec 2012 #19
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #21
ywcachieve Dec 2012 #25
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #27
Javaman Dec 2012 #44
samsingh Dec 2012 #53
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #68
samsingh Dec 2012 #72
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #79
samsingh Dec 2012 #81
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #82
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #134
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #145
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #169
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #173
GoneOffShore Dec 2012 #54
hfojvt Dec 2012 #20
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #23
meegbear Dec 2012 #28
Dustlawyer Dec 2012 #29
quinnox Dec 2012 #30
janx Dec 2012 #38
treestar Dec 2012 #33
janx Dec 2012 #37
leftstreet Dec 2012 #39
bigtree Dec 2012 #46
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #60
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #66
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #101
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #106
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #107
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #113
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #56
leftstreet Dec 2012 #65
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #70
marble falls Dec 2012 #43
lunatica Dec 2012 #45
leftstreet Dec 2012 #69
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #71
brentspeak Dec 2012 #85
leftstreet Dec 2012 #91
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #126
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #94
madfloridian Dec 2012 #102
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #108
madfloridian Dec 2012 #116
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #119
madfloridian Dec 2012 #128
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #140
brentspeak Dec 2012 #133
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #143
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #153
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #158
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #170
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #174
lunatica Dec 2012 #73
noiretextatique Dec 2012 #59
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #78
noiretextatique Dec 2012 #92
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #97
malaise Dec 2012 #74
LWolf Dec 2012 #77
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #80
LWolf Dec 2012 #84
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #93
LWolf Dec 2012 #99
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #114
LWolf Dec 2012 #127
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #86
Skittles Dec 2012 #88
madfloridian Dec 2012 #103
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #111
madfloridian Dec 2012 #117
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #120
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #121
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #105
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #118
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #124
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #125
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #109
Skittles Dec 2012 #87
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #110
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #123
JimGinPA Dec 2012 #131
grantcart Dec 2012 #137
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #138
JimGinPA Dec 2012 #144
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #147
JimGinPA Dec 2012 #152
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #155
grantcart Dec 2012 #139
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #148
mmonk Dec 2012 #142
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #149
mmonk Dec 2012 #167
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #172
babylonsister Dec 2012 #151
Taverner Dec 2012 #159
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #161
Taverner Dec 2012 #162
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #163
Number23 Dec 2012 #166
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #168
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #171
bemildred Dec 2012 #177
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #181
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #182

Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:03 AM

1. Why not Stonewall?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:12 AM

5. Stonewall ...

while a turning point in the GLTB, my understanding is it was more of a spontaneous response to police action, rather than a planned action, like the marches and boycott.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:42 AM

15. The initial response was spontaneous, but it was what happened afterward that made the event importa

One could make the comparison to Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts. Parks refused to give up her seat, and was subsequently arrested. This was not a first, and the story could have simply ended there. However, it was the NAACP, the boycott, and court action subsequent to her arrest that brought about change.

Stonewall was, as you correctly point out, the response to a police action. But that police action finally leads gay Americans to organize in cities throughout America. To make a long story short, without Stonewall, one never gets to San Francisco and Harvey Milk; one never gets to marriage equality. The organizing that began in Greenwich Village after Stonewall gets LGBT Americans to where they are now, much as Rosa Parks led to the NAACP organizing to destroy the last vestiges of "Separate but Equal."

That's as well as I can do without coffee.

-- Otherwise, I like the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:01 AM

24. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:45 AM

47. Rosa Parks was actually part of the organization that planned the boycott

But she wasn't supposed to be the spark that started it. She was really just very tired that day and refused to move to the back of the bus. The organization she was part of used it because they already had all the pieces in place.

I learned that in US History class in college. Not the regular dates of wars History, but Women's US History. I learned more US history in that class than I had in all my years of being forced to memorize the dates of our wars and land acquisitions.

Edited to add that the Civil Rights Movement in the South had already done a lot of the work to be prepared to act. Little steps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:48 AM

49. Rosa Parks actions that day were spontaneous

It had been tried before with no luck, however she saw an opening and took it. Much like Stonewall was not a planned action for that day, the action was only possible due to previous actions by activists and the community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:55 AM

51. Yes. That's what I was trying to say

In other words, she wasn't just a catalyst in spite of herself. She was the catalyst that she didn't expect to be, within a movement that wanted that catalyst. The bus driver's reaction was predictable, which is why it was planned.

Know thine enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:26 PM

136. They were not spontaneous, they were 20 years in the making:

Not sure that this really changes the point anyone is making but simply want to clarify the mythology of Rosa being
an accidental actor in the civil rights struggle.

She had been active for 2 decades and knew exactly what she was provoking when she sat down on that bench, just another step in her long march for freedom. She started in private in the 1930s but by the 1940s was a very public actor in the civil rights movement, public in a state where being public could be a death warrant.




http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/01/opinion-its-time-to-free-rosa-parks-from-the-bus/

In the 1930s, Rosa Parks joined her husband Raymond and others in secret meetings to defend the Scottsboro boys—nine young African-American men accused of raping two white women in Alabama in 1931. In the 1940s, they hosted Voter League meetings, where they encouraged neighbors to register even though it was a dangerous task. In 1943, she joined the Montgomery NAACP and was elected branch secretary. The job required Parks to investigate and document acts of racist and sexist brutality.

It was in this context, in 1944, that Rosa Parks investigated the brutal gang-rape of Recy Taylor, a black woman from Abbeville, Alabama.

Parks took Taylor’s testimony back to Montgomery, where she and other activists organized the “Committee for Equal Justice for Mrs. Recy Taylor.” They launched what the Chicago Defender called the “strongest campaign for equal justice to be seen in a decade.” In 1948, she gave a fiery speech at the state NAACP convention criticizing President Harry Truman’s civil rights initiatives. “No one should feel proud,” she said, “when Negroes every day are being molested.”

Foot fatigue played no role when she refused to relinquish her seat on December 1, 1955. “There had to be a stopping place,” she said, “and this seemed to be the place for me to stop being pushed around. I had decided that I would have to know once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen, even in Montgomery, Alabama.”

Constant death threats forced her to leave Alabama in 1957. When she arrived in Detroit she continued working as an activist. Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, she worked to secure “Black Power,” fought for open housing and against police brutality, railed against the war in Vietnam, and campaigned for George McGovern. She was an ardent fan of Malcolm X and Robert F. Williams, a militant NAACP leader from North Carolina who advocated “armed self-reliance.” She admired Williams so much that she delivered the eulogy at his funeral in 1996.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #136)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:32 PM

157. I was referring to her specific actions that day

not the long term plan. She was not chosen to take this action on that day, in fact several others had attempted to do what she did with no luck. She saw an opening and took the plan into action - her taking that action on that day had not been planned, hence my calling her actions spontaneous, though I should have clarified what she did had been a plan she was aware of, she took the opportunity.

http://www.adl.org/education/rosa_parks.asp

Though Rosa Parks became the focal point of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the idea for a boycott was conceived at least six years before her arrest. In 1949, Jo Ann Gibson Robinson, an English professor and head of the Women’s Political Council (WPC), was ejected from a bus for refusing to move seats and resolved to do something about bus segregation. During the ensuing years, the WPC prepared to stage a bus boycott “when the time was ripe and the people were ready.” In the months prior to Parks’ arrest, at least three other African American people had been arrested for refusing to give up their bus seats to white people. When Rosa Parks was arrested, movement leaders made a strategic decision to launch the boycott because they felt Mrs. Parks had the respect and support of her community as well as the fortitude to withstand the racism and publicity that the boycott would generate.


Edit to add:

http://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/rosaparks/story.asp
Her action was spontaneous and not pre-meditated, although her previous civil rights involvement and strong sense of justice were obvious influences. "When I made that decision," she said later, “I knew that I had the strength of my ancestors with me.”

She was arrested and convicted of violating the laws of segregation, known as “Jim Crow laws.” Mrs. Parks appealed her conviction and thus formally challenged the legality of segregation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:11 PM

98. she was naacp secretary. they'd been looking for test cases for a bus boycott for some time

 

& had actually tried a couple of times before. some possible candidates for a test case had been rejected because they were too young, too lower-class, too 'dark'.

http://www.core-online.org/History/colvin.htm

the first person she called after the arrest was the naacp president, and the bus boycott started getting organized that very day.

http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/systems/agentsheets/New-Vista/bus-boycott/

she said she wasn't physically tired; rather, tired of mistreatment.

http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/bio_rparks2.htm

that day she was going home not to rest after work, but to prepare for a youth workshop.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GsfezxJxEsAJ:www.piconetwork.org/tools-resources/document/0045.doc+rosa+parks+bus+boycott+test+case&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESha2k0TPWLBTHXKlOsrG4XOzu1JyJe1gffniHI0kEJgcmMsnO9nhylEbE-uFCbFsIQuNFjEzVS4qP8vnd-dxuzfwMTNBhgtBWmlyg5bRmZx-IccU9aoN5jr808aql0o9KFWrLy8&sig=AHIEtbTLsJgQgvWdibsLhPlcjr_0qTrfrA


The local NAACP already knew it was going to do a bus boycott & was *ready* to act. Not 'little steps'.

In this context, her refusal to move to the back is not a spontaneous unplanned act.

http://www.socialstudies.com/c/@10ybJGBs6We9k/Pages/article.html?article@rosaparks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #98)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:25 PM

122. I'm shocked by how man DUers in this thread do not know the

true history of what happened. It is stunning to me!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #122)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:30 PM

130. The way American history has been taught in this country

it shouldn't come as any surprise. Rosa Park's actual history is little known unless you study Black History, or as in my case Women's History.

I'm 64 years old and believe me American History was all about white men and their wars. Things like slavery were probably only taught because of the Civil War. The subject is covered in two paragraphs. Women's history is also just making fun of the Suffragette movement.

Hopefully it's different now, but I doubt it as long as white men get to decide what gets studied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:46 AM

48. Stonewall wasn't as spontaneous as people think either

There is a documentary called Before Stonewall on Netflix I recommend to anyone interested in Civil Rights of Gay Americans.

There was a big build up both within the gay community and outside the gay community that lead to the conditions where gay people could stand up to the police at Stonewall. While it was not planned as an action, it also was not a spontaneous action. It was the result of years and years of "civil" activism with the goal of looking mainstream and fitting in. The community had a split on what approach should be used, and Stonewall is an affect of that split. The gay community in America has been visibly fighting for its rights on one level for over 100 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:40 PM

132. +1 eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:26 PM

63. That's a bit of a stretch

Harvey Milk and the SF Gay rights movement probably would have happened without Stonewall. The impetus for the Gay rights movement in SF were the street assaults on Gays and Lesbians, and the police indifference to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:56 PM

83. I don't think the people who participated in that "street action" were particularly "progressive,"

either--their focus was on not being beaten up and abused and harassed for just living their lives. I am sure there were registered Democrats AND registered (future log cabin) Republicans in that crowd...and people who didn't bother to vote at all.

Neither party was terribly nice to the LGBT community back when that event occurred, hell, society as a whole was pretty shitty and ignorant back then--I don't think that a gay person felt a "loyalty" to a party based on their willingness to speak for them and articulate their interests; the focus was more on preventing abuse by authorities--the organizing and goal setting came later, with the Dems doing a somewhat better job of supporting those goals than the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #83)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:46 PM

112. My point exactly n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #83)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:55 PM

115. I disagree

Many LGBT persons were actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement with MLK. While neither party was particularly nice to LGBT Americans then many LGBT people were politically active and democrats at that point. If you watch Before Stonewall they document this, as a community being highly involved with MLK, as one of the leading cause of the Stonewall Riots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #115)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:09 PM

129. Republicans were not racist pigs back then--MLK was a registered Republican.

The reason for that is because he couldn't stand those racist Dixiecrats. He didn't trust either party terribly much toward the end (and who could blame him), but he could spot a southern Democrat at a hundred yards. The racist GOP of today sometimes tries to use his party registration as "proof" of something, suggesting that they aren't a racist outfit, but they are operating without context. The GOP of yesteryear is not the same animal that it is today.

A good touchstone to understand how civil rights issues "broke" in terms of party is the Civil Rights Act of 64. Check out the vote totals--they aren't "along party lines" at all. In fact, Republicans were key in delivering that vote to LBJ. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Nixon's southern strategy was still the early days of the whole GOP "race card" thing, and that wasn't an attitude that was cast in stone when Stonewall happened--it was still regarded as a 'one off.' The "racist Republican" theme didn't take hold for many years, and many northern Republicans were very pro-equal rights, were horrified by the behavior and attitudes of southern Dems and newly-minted 'racist Republicans,' and routinely voted against the southern Democrats in Congress. In fact, it was the grave failing of the DEMOCRATS that they were the "united front" of racist bastards back in the days when LBJ was prowling the corridors of the House and Senate, vote counting-- and they carried a lot of clout in Congress--there was a real difference between what I knew as a "Democrat" (from the north) and a "southern Democrat." The latter was code in my neck of the woods for "racist asshole."

As the southern strategy took hold those "southern Democrats"--like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond--became Republicans, because they didn't like the fact that the party wasn't going to tolerate racist bullshit south of the Mason Dixon anymore.

I just don't think that Stonewall was an active expression of "progressive POVs." It was an active expression of human beings being sick and tired of being bullied, harassed, threatened and beaten by crooked and cruel cops, on top of being ripped off by mobsters (the Stonewall Inn was owned by mafiosi). It was insult, injury, and a "mad as hell/not going to take it anymore" attitude. If the riots encouraged people to become activists in future, that's all to the good, but I don't think those riots came out of a greater strategy--they came from frustration and anger and might have produced a strategy--but only after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #129)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:17 PM

135. So in effect your saying Progressives were not part of either party

they were present in both parties. Where as today nearly all progressives would be liberal, by default of our two party system, members of the Democratic party? (Unless Im missing something).

I still disagree with your argument. Many of the people that took part in the Riots have been interviewed and documented, in fact its quite easy to search for examples online. While there were certainly members of both parties there, I still believe the vast majority, while claiming Democratic Party membership now, were progressives at the time, regardless of registration. The very principles espoused in the riot and the following two days are at heart progressive ideals.

Edit to add:

Regardless, I think the defining thing of both Stonewall and Rosa Parks is that those actions do not belong to a political party or political group, but rather a minority group. Stonewall belongs to all gay people, regardless of political beliefs, as does the Civil Rights movement belonging to black Americans, not a political party or political group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #135)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:49 PM

141. No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that progressive values were not the impetus for the

riots. The impetus for the riots were very essential emotions, common to us all when we are pushed too hard and too far--in the case of the rioters, it was frustration at being beaten, corralled, abused, derided, threatened, bullied, harrassed, placed in a fearful envionment, what-have-you. These are the sorts of things that irritate ANYONE, regardless of their political affiliation.

I am also saying that in 1969, neither the Democratic nor Republican parties had a terribly mature or truthful view of gay persons. They regarded them as deviant, aberrant, a danger to children, perverse, imbued with evil, "turned" by mendacious gym teachers, made that way by lackadaisical parenting and a lack of motherly love--you name the false, nasty, negative stereotype or nonsensical theory, and you could find people on both sides of the aisle who held those foolish POVs.

We agree that this particular event was not the province of a political party--it was a human rights issue, plain and simple. However, I will say that in the intervening years, the Democrats are far more progressive on the issue of civil, human and personal rights than the GOP. Not perfect, mind you, but better, certainly. The GOP delights in dog whistling on these subjects to appeal to angry white males who take issue with people of color and gays. Unfortunately for them, the ranks of angry white males are shrinking as our nation becomes more diverse, and they don't have sufficient mass to carry the day anymore. That's good news for the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:04 AM

2. 100% correct -- good post

. . . major progressive changes, adopted and approved in our legislative system of government have been mostly incremental. There are still progressive issues with landmark legislation like, Brown vs. Board of Education. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well left behind the disabled and those with different sexual orientations . . .

(if you can indulge me and an excerpt from a defining essay I wrote a while back . . .)


Taking our protests to the streets and (sometimes) to the halls of Congress is a healthy flexing of our democratic system. Our legislative agenda is (historically) best served when it is initiated and advocated from the ground up, but, at some point, to convert those ideas into action, our agenda need to be assigned to our legislators we elect to public office - the caretakers and managers of the levers of our democracy.

Baynard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for a movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:

"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."

"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.

"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin said in his book, Down the Line. "As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it. For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect."

Another important point Ruskin made in reference to unity among blacks within the movement rings true for our own diverse progressive coalitions which have massed to march together in protest, and will be advocating within the system (together or independently) for our Democratic agenda. "In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."

Comprising doesn't have to mean rolling over and betraying our principles or our positions. Many protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other. While our legislators may come to office with similar goals, like ending the Iraq occupation, they, nonetheless, come to office with a myriad of ideas and approaches to achieve those goals. Those different views and approaches must be reconciled if legislation is to move out of their respective chambers and up the legislative ladder.

Addressing the struggle for civil rights in his own time, Rustin wrote that, "Confronted with a new agenda, we had to come to terms with developing new tactics. When we had absolute demands for the rights of freedom and dignity, we could insist on absolute solutions. But when you are working within the political system,you can no longer deal in absolute terms. You must be prepared to compromise, you must be prepared to make and accept concessions," he wrote.

Achieving legislative solutions to the issues and concerns which confront us will take time. That effort will also, more than likely, take even more protesting. I profess that I'm as frustrated as many here with the lack of progress or support from Congress or the White House on many progressive initiatives and ideals. However, as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our protests, and do what it takes to form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:29 AM

9. From Bayard Rustin's 'From Montgomery To Stonewall'- just to add more from Rustin, for the OP

"That was the beginning of an extraordinary revolution, similar to the Montgomery Bus Boycott in that it was not expected that anything extraordinary would occur. As in the case of the women who left the Russian factory, and in the case of Rosa Parks who sat down in the white part of the bus, something began to happen, people began to protest. They began to fight for the right to live in dignity, the right essentially to be one’s self in every respect, and the right to be protected under law. In other words, people began to fight for their human rights. Gay people must continue this protest."
http://wagingnonviolence.org/2009/06/bayard-rustin-40-years-after-stonewall/

The entire Essay by Rustin can be read at this link:
http://www.illinoisprobono.org/calendarUploads/Rustin%20Documents.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:42 AM

16. I wonder how Duers would feel today

. . . about the outreach and alliances that Ruskin tried to forge with the very racist and exclusive labor unions as he moved from protest to encouraging legislative action?

Ruskin understood the value of seeking and achieving incremental changes through government action; even as he continued to acknowledge the value of protest and activism. I think we saw a genuine cause and effect from the OWS movement in the way that would-be and sitting politicians addressed voters. We even see some effects of that activism in the current legislative efforts and focus on the economy. Definitely, more protest is needed -- however, there is also a pressing need for legislative action, as well. We should be mindful of EVERY instigation of democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:57 AM

22. He also knew and spoke at length about the fact that activism toward legislative changes can

alter the culture and make the legislative changes far less needed. I assume you will read the links I provided, Mr Rustin's actual writings. Here is a quote from Bayard:
"Well what do we have to do that is concrete? We have to fight forlegislation wherever we are, to
state our case clearly as blacks had to do in the South when it was profoundly
uncomfortable. Some people say to me, "Well Mr Rustin,. how long is it going to take?" Let
me point out that it doesn't take a law to get rid of a practice. The NAACP worked for sixty
years to get an antilynch law in this country. We never got an antilynch law, and now we don't
need one. It was the propaganda for the law we never got that liberated us."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:18 AM

35. heh

. . . it was the enforcement of the federal government which guaranteed those rights.

As you can see, from both of our accounts, Mr. Rustin may well have (correctly) put his emphasis on the transformational value of protest and activism; yet, he, undeniably, suffered with strained and severed alliances from his determination to move past protests to actually achieving legislative solutions to the issues and concerns he was fighting for.

I don't think I need to tell you about the pages and pages of Rustin's and others' accounts of his life and philosophy and political efforts available to read and learn from.

Do you think we need 'hate-crime' laws today (very similar to the nature and intent of the anti-lynching laws Mr. Rustin spoke of in the essay you linked to)? Or, do you feel, as he stated here, that the change in the majority public attitude would be sufficient?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:15 PM

146. Social Security was incremental. It didn't initially provide universal coverage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #146)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:50 PM

150. The Founding of Social security was NOT incremental at all.

It established a Publicly Owned/Government Administered/Taxpayer Supported Agency which later became the cornerstone of the modern Democratic party.

It was improved incrementally over the years,
but the FOUNDING of Social Security,
and validation of the principle
that Our Government of The People CAN work FOR The People can NOT be minimized.

The founding of Social Security was a Huge Paradigm Shift,
the impact of which is STILL being felt across our nation today.
This was NO "baby step".
It was an Olympic Leap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #150)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:21 PM

154. Unbelievable. What I posted is factually correct yet you decide to try and argue.

Social Security EXCLUDED groups of people and GRADUALLY included everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #154)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:32 PM

164. bears repeating for the deniers of the very important slights in that initial bill

. . . as it relates to the op's words about 'incremental change.'


from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

____ Most women and minorities were excluded from its benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #154)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:40 PM

175. Unbelievable?... only to those who refuse to acknowlege it

... because that fact invalidates the contrived narrative of the "Centrists" who wish to marginalize the accomplishments and legacy of The REAL Democratic Party so that the current "New Democrats" can be viewed more favorably.
(A favorite tactic of conservatives).

The founding of Social Security was a Paradigm Shit (look it up) in the US.
It cemented in the cornerstone of a solid foundation.
In and of itself, that WAS a great achievement,
and a Great Day for America.

Paradigm Shifts are never "incremental".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #175)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:52 PM

176. then your opposition to the ACA health insurance act must follow the same logic

. . . since those objections of yours pale in comparison to the complaints from the vast majority of working Americans who were left completely out of the initial Social Security law signed by FDR.
______________

. . . women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #176)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:26 PM

178. If YOU can point out the Foundation Cornerstone of the ACA...

...that changes the Paradigm I would be glad to.

Unfortunately, the only Paradigm Shift in the ACA,
the ONLY "foundation" it established,
is that NOW American Citizens are required to assume "Personal Responsibility",
and BUY Health Insurance, every year, from For Profit health Insurance Corporations.
If Americans refuse to assume this "Personal Responsibility",
they will be punished by the IRS.

(Remind me again WHICH Party is the Party of "Personal Responsibility",
and which party declared Health care to be a Basic Human Right?
If you don't know,
SEE: FDR, Economic Bill of Rights)


That IS The Reason I have consistently opposed the ACA.

Please show me,
in simple terms (because I'm not very smart)
How we move from:

Each American MUST Buy Health Insurance from For Profit health Insurance Corporations

TO

Publicly Owned, Government Administered, National health Insurance?

I can't see the "next step".
I can't see HOW we can Fix It without FIRST Undoing it.

Expanding Medicaid?
Sure.
Though Medicaid is a 3rd Class Health System for The Low Income Class
(Yes, Virginia, there IS two Americas),
I support THAT part of the ACA,
though the mandatory Medicaid expansion was declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
I still have some hope.


But Medicaid Expansion is no Paradigm Shift.
It isn't even anything for Democrats to Parade Around as a Victory.
It is A Given, nothing new.
That places NO cornerstones.

Keep it simple for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #178)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:08 PM

179. exactly

. . . the same questions that were being asked about SS laws during FDR's term. Many of the same criticisms.

You can debate the future of health care and insurance under ACA but it is a foot in the door; a 'step in the right direction.' Clearly, there aren't enough votes in Congress to mandate or establish single-payer systems for all states right now, but Senators like Bernie Sanders who voted for the act are optimistic that it can be used as a platform for further reform. I don't know how much closer you can get to an analogy of the ACA to the atmosphere and landscape surrounding SS during FDR's time


In a statement after the Supreme Court ruling, Sen. Sanders said,

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. “Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.

It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care.

In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America’s health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:00 AM

165. You know, this is one thing that reminds me of the glacial progress of change

in this country. Sure, Stonewall sparked something but it wasn't until just the last few years that public perceptions of gays turned away from vilification to "hey, what's the problem with being gay?" - that is what really sparked the ground shift and still, only a handful of States have chosen to "allow" equal rights for gay couples, in other words, those who don't creep us out. Drag Queens and Trans people need not apply. Ugh, but the glacial progress does continue.

Racism is alive and well in 2012, 150 years after slavery was outlawed, we still struggle with it. Man, that's glacial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:08 AM

3. I remember a president sending federal troops to integrate schools in the South

It's hard for me to imagine an equally bold step being taken these days by a Democratic president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:22 AM

6. You've seen it ...

albeit on a lesser scale, you just didn't like it, e.g., DoJ vs MMJ Dispensaries.

But on further thought, why do you find it so hard to believe that President Obama would send in federal troops where governors stood in open defiance of the law of the land?

Would/Do you have equal reservation, should the State of Texas make good on some of its looney population, and attempt to secede?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:26 AM

8. Secessionists are trolls

The best way to deal with a troll is to starve it of the attention it so desperately craves.

Down here in the South we look at them, shake our heads and murmur "Bless their hearts".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:24 AM

7. I'd think that would be because there isn't a complete breakdown in the justice system

What state is so utterly defiant of federal law -- and devoid of judicial or administrative ability to challenge such defiance or misconduct -- that it requires the extraordinary intervention of the federal government 'sending in troops?'

I don't think that just generally equating that action with situations we may object to is credible -- unless we can demonstrate that there are such extraordinary, imminent, or threatening actions in a state which aren't addressable through the mechanisms and remedies already provided by that state. I really find it incomprehensible that the intervention of the heavy hand of the federal government into affairs which are normally handled by states is treated as some progressive aim. Think, pot laws, for instance.

Your standard is an unreasonable, incomplete, and mostly inapplicable one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:30 AM

10. I was just giving an example of bold presidential action

I for one found it inspirational at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:33 AM

12. well, yeah

. . . but you've revealed a false romanticism which doesn't really acknowledge that we have a very different relationship with government than we had in the '50's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:36 AM

14. True, the federal government is much more powerful now than it was then n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:33 AM

42. So are we. i.e. the Internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:56 AM

52. You're right, it would be much easier today to organize to fight forced integration

The feds wouldn't stand a chance putting troops in the schools to enforce integration these days, the awesome power of facebook would sap their precious bodily fluids and they would submit to the authoritah of dah peeples.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:05 PM

55. that's more true than you pretend

. . . actually, the federal government is insinuated in states to the extent that it's sometimes indistinguishable from state law and regs. The enforcers are right there to administer the regulations and to process complaints and grievances and address abuses. The courts have their monitors, as well, sometimes walking in the same shoes as the jurists.

Addressing your original point, there are myriads of steps available for citizens before a president has the need and providence to 'send in troops'.

I'd think you'd be a little more appreciative of the impact of an enhanced public discourse enabled by an expansive social media network (or were you being serious?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:22 PM

62. I grew up then and there, my perspective is a little different

I didn't expect to find people who thought the federal role in desegregation to be a bad thing here on DU.

I guess I'm starting to hit culture shock here in the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:37 PM

67. well, we can't pretend that every initiative and action by the federal government was beneficial

. . . and beyond criticism. Most of these landmark laws didn't resemble the comprehensive and inclusive legislation that bear the same names today.

Personally, I believe in the primacy of the federal government in the realization and perpetuation of rights guaranteed under the school segregation laws, if that's that you're referring to. It's indisputable that the rights enumerated under the 14th and 15th Amendments, for example, were just abstractions without the federal government stepping in to defend those rights.

That's a very different observation, though, than asserting that there's some need (or acceptability) for the federal government to send in troops today. I still have to wonder where you see that need? I don't think that makes for progressive philosophy to expect that extraordinary intervention today, unless, of course, you can demonstrate some breakdown in the state govt./ judicial system that comes close to what we experienced in the days of Brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:22 PM

75. No need to get so defensive, everything is fine

Just an old man reminiscing about when it felt like the government was actually on his side.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #75)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:28 PM

76. I always have to remind myself

. . . that there's a real person behind all of the cynicism and snark that comes from 'Fumesucker'; sometimes a thoughtful intellectual there, as well. You really need a red light or something to signal when you've turned the zingers off if you expect me to approach you with my dukes down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:19 PM

90. I love you too



In all seriousness, I think you're mostly serious about what you say and I actually do have respect for your views, You're a better writer than I am, I'm not organized enough, I often don't remember from one reply to the next what the subject even is. I'd have to look back up after writing this much to even know the actual topic of this post. My short term memory is getting a little hinky jinky and gives party parity errors but my long term memory is just fine for most purposes.

Casual remarks and cultural cues lead me to think the average age on DU is getting up there, a lot of us remember a different world in some ways and of course we have the special rose colored hindsight glasses on.

Mea culpa, forgive us our sins heavenly father as we forgive those who trespass against us.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:06 PM

57. To a certain extent, yes. Light is the most effective disinfectant we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:19 PM

61. I see the disinfectant working the other way, I grew up in that time and place

What happened then was a good thing, it was the social networks of those towns that kept Jim Crow in place and it took outside force to change it.

Edit: Dope slap for stupid mistake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:15 PM

100. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:09 AM

4. What is the point you are trying to make about Stonewall? Do you know what happened that night?

"The Stonewall riots inspired LGBT people throughout the country to organize in support of gay rights, and within two years after the riots, gay rights groups had been started in nearly every major city in the United States."
http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/449-stonewall.html

"Recently released arrest records prove what many historians and veterans of that night have been saying for years—that lesbians, transgender people, and people of color of all persuasions were at Stonewall that night.

Before I moved to New York City at 24 years old a decade ago, I always believed that the Stonewall Riots, whose 40th anniversary was commemorated on June 28th, happened because a bunch of testy queens still grieving over the death of Judy Garland, took out their frustrations on unsuspecting police for 3 days. Not only is this persistent rumor false, but it obscures the race, class and gender dynamics of the riots. It also demeans the conditions that created the riot. Unfortunately those conditions still largely persist in the lives of poor and working class LGBT blacks and Latinos in New York City today."
http://thegrio.com/2009/06/30/in-the-1960s-new-york/

Read and learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:06 AM

26. Yes ...

This was what I had understood Stonewall to be about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:16 AM

32. What do you mean 'this was what I understood'?

You owe it to others to be clear. Are you saying you read these links and found that you were incorrect about your characterization of that important event in history? That you opined about that which you had no knowledge of?
Why not be clear about what you are saying?
Did you post that tripe simply to take a swipe at gay people? What was the point you strained to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:27 AM

40. I have done ...

none of this, other than my having read the links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:49 AM

50. You are typing incomprehensible responses.

But your message is as loud and clear as it was in that snarky Stonewall comment in your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:19 AM

180. The point is well made

the poster 'read links' about the history. I would like to see some of these links to read for myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:22 PM

104. wow, dave van ronk was arrested there.

 

One document provides additional detail about the previously known arrest of David Van Ronk, a heterosexual folk singer (who was incorrectly described as an actor) who was accused of assaulting an officer “with an unknown object.” Mr. Van Ronk eventually pleaded guilty to harassment, a violation. He was later sued by the police officer, Gilbert Weisman, for assault, and had to pay a fine.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/police-records-document-the-stonewall-uprising/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:31 AM

11. Media acclimates us to think that only immediate, dramatic change is possible.

TV and video games feed the need for instant gratification.

But you are right, most social changes come about at a glacial pace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:36 AM

13. I have posted a few links about Stonewall which I do not expect you to have courage to read

much less to discuss. You should read Rustin's 'From Montgomery To Stonewall' and read what he has to say about how activism and legislation work. It is interesting to me that in this post you say that each of those events had nothing to do with progressives, except that they organized others to take action. Upthread you claim Stonewall was not part of the movement because it was not organized in advance. That's your claim. Organization is either without value or it is the defining aspect of a protest, depending on which post of yours one reads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:15 AM

31. I read both articles linked ...

and Stonewall was largely what I thought it was.

But your conclusion from what I said:

Upthread you claim Stonewall was not part of the movement because it was not organized in advance. That's your claim. Organization is either without value or it is the defining aspect of a protest, depending on which post of yours one reads.


Inaccurately states my point. I never said organization was without value; but yes, I did distinguish between the actions, based on their level of planned organization. But in making the distinctions, I was addressing two searate points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:19 AM

36. "they didn't do anything but organize others' vs 'it was not planned as the other actions were'.

What were your 'two separate points'? Is it not possible for you to simply make your points?
The coyness and evasion are not aspects of the word 'strong' in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:32 AM

41. The involvement of ...

bold, visionary progressives (as the respondent claimed) versus the unplanned actions of a disenfranchised people to affect change (as was my statement.

I think your interest is blinding you to what I actually said ... I suspect you read what I wrote as a swipe at the GLTB community or of the significance of Stonewall; I have done neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:11 PM

58. Well you are not being clear at all. Your OP did not even provide a link for context to the thread

you are going on about. I asked you several times to say what you meant. I offered up a few different perspectives on the event from people like Bayard Rustin, in hopes that we could discuss your view of the Stonewall uprising. Thus far, you have not joined in.
Many straight people are unaware that Stonewall involved lots of women, people of color, transsexual people, not just a bunch of gay white guys. Almost no one in the straight community is aware that a straight guy was one of the most badly beaten by the police, he was walking past and the cops beat the shit out of him.
Why don't they know these things? Because they feel entitled to spew opinion about an event they will then refuse to discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:30 PM

64. Okay ...

I have not joined in on the discussion of Stonewall because it is, in the context of MY OP, a very small part.

That's not to say or imply that Stonewall is not a significant, important Civil Rights event. But if you wish to discuss Stonewall ... Maybe you should start your own thread; rather than, hi-jacking mine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:07 PM

156. You are the one who made Stonewall rhetorical football of your screed here today. Not me.

As I said to you above, many uninformed straight folks feel entitled to spew opinion about an event they will then refuse to discuss. This is why they remain ignorant of the facts.
If you don't want to discuss it, don't exploit the event in a negative attack on the people you don't agree with.
You dragged this from another posters OP which was locked. This is TWO threads in which you felt compelled and entitled to make mention of your dismissive opinion of the Stonewall Uprising. TWO. And yet when your declarations were not accepted as wisdom by me and others, you refuse to discuss what YOU brought up in TWO different threads.
You bring the subject to the table, then you don't want to deal with the facts about it. What a piece of nasty, evasive rhetoric you typed up all over DU in two threads.
My advice is that if you are unable to deal with discussing a topic, don't make an OP about it. Your lack of education about Stonewall is apparent. But you as a straight person feel entitled to preach on the subject without being countered by informed others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #156)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:42 PM

160. Okay ...

But please explain how I have been dismissive of Stonewall ... despite my stating that it is a significant and important Civil Rights event.

I think you have more going on than my post ... and that I cannot help.

Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:43 AM

17. A very iintelligent post. Thank you.

Too bad so-called progressives will not get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:44 AM

18. I don't know why your thread was blocked. Really crazy. However...

I agree with you both. Baby steps are vital. Marches are vital. It takes the people out there to get angry enough to cause govt. to change. However, until our system for electing officials and representatives in government no longer runs on the mega-money of corporations, we will continue to be battling the control of the govt. by the powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:17 AM

34. It wasn't my thread ...

but I understand why it was locked ... it violated the DU rule regarding critizing DU and its membership.

Here's the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022082507

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:15 PM

89. no

it's a statement critical of free republic-type behavior

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:57 PM

95. Okay ...

it's a statement critical of free republic-type behavior, as practiced here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:03 PM

96. Ah ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:53 AM

21. Your point would have a bit more impact if you could spell Progressive

Or maybe you're being sarcastic, who the hell can tell any more?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:03 AM

25. I know how to spell progressive, and jackass, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:08 AM

27. Don't forget teabagger





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:38 AM

44. Your edit history begs to differ.

nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:01 PM

53. they do not have the same mentality

Progressives are fighting against time to help people and make things fair.

teabaggers are trying to turn things back and fight against such things as support for the middle class, improvements to working lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:37 PM

68. It's not so much ...

the mission, it's the tactics that they have in common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #68)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:05 PM

72. when do the progressives demonstrate rank hyprocrasy

attempts voter suppression, calls to kill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:41 PM

79. I don't know if I wish to engage this discussion; but ..

those are not the tactics I am referring to. I'm speaking of the unwillingness to recognize that in order to govern in our form of divided government, one MUST compromise. And a willingness to recognize that half a loaf is better than no loaf ... doubly so, when the no loaf came about because "we can't let them push us around" egoism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:47 PM

81. okay let's compromise and move on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:52 PM

82. Alright. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:09 PM

134. Of course not, you'd rather flame all the Progressives that make up the majority of the board

and then run from it like a coward.

Compromising is okay but we're not dealing with people that are willing to compromise to a center so bending over backwards and giving them 150% of what they want even though they will still denounce and vote against it (see: HCR) is stupid.

The Right Wing is negotiating in bad faith and between Clinton and Obama it seems we give them everything they want for very little to nothing in return. That progressives/liberals have been 100 steps ahead on everything policy wise for the last few decades is ignored in the DLC/New Democrat/Third Way line of thinking. They don't care about any of that. They care about maintaining the status quo for their rich benefactors, many of which that are the same as the funders of the right wingers.

Washington is about appearance and appeasing constituents with names of bills rather than the substance in them.

So attack Progressives all you want but you're on the wrong board if you expect to be vindicated for trash talking people here. And regardless of Stonewall, Progressives WERE at the center of all of the major civil rights movements in this country. It doesn't matter if those Progressives were labeled Democrat or Republican back then because those labels are irrelevant to the ideologies of those same parties today. If you stood up for Women's Rights when most people thought they didn't deserve them: YOU WERE PROGRESSIVE. If you stood up for Blacks and Minorities in the face of an overwhelming amount of racists: YOU WERE PROGRESSIVE. If you stood up for equality for LGBT people. YOU WERE PROGRESSIVE.

PROGRESSIVE is by definition someone who is forward thinking. Not someone trapped in the archaic discriminatory beliefs of the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #134)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:09 PM

145. Should I stop reading at the first, second or third inaccuracy? ...

Inaccuracy #1;

Of course not, you'd rather flame all the Progressives


I do not "flame all the Progressives, or even most Progressives ... I fact, I consider myself a "Pragmatic Progressive."

Inaccuracy #2:

the Progressives that make up the majority of the board


As with any group ... Loud and post frequency does not constitute a majority. The site's name DEMOCRATIC Underground should be a hint as to the Board's primary membership.

Inaccuracy #3:

and then run from it like a coward.


My frequent responses on this thread (and any/every other thread that I venture an opinion), as well as my screen-name would suggest that I, neither, run nor am I a coward.

And damn ... I haven't even got off the title line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #145)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:53 AM

169. Thank you!


"As with any group ... Loud and post frequency does not constitute a majority. The site's name DEMOCRATIC Underground should be a hint as to the Board's primary membership."


Yes, I registered for Democratic Underground, not Socialist Underground, Progressive Underground, Liberal Underground, or even Communist Underground, though I respect all positions some segment believes they speak for all. I was once a republican and defected for precisely that same thing, the tea party is what did it in for me, intractable, uncompromising and they think they speak for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #169)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:05 AM

173. I consider ...

the majority of "Progressives" that I have problems with (and strangely it's mostly on this Board, rather than in real life) is they present as a cross between the teaparty, in their intractableness, uncompromisingness, and their thinking they speak for everyone; and the Ron Paul Libertarians, in their running from the liberal label, their genuiene passion, and their unwillingness/inability to recognize that wihile their goal/philosophy sounds good, it is unworkable in real life, absent some major social shifts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:03 PM

54. Peddle that malarkey about progressives elsewhere. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:48 AM

20. sounds like a bunch of excuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:00 AM

23. Amen! Thank you!

Finally. Some insight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:09 AM

28. Hear! Hear!

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:09 AM

29. People protested injustice back then b/c they had unbiased reporting that told them about it!

Now, the sheep sit in front of the TV and are told what and how to think. They do not want to see through the facade. Our whole system of government and the media are now designed to get the rich richer, and for the poor to remain ignorant and in poverty! We are now just a labor source and they are not through softening us up to get our labor rates down to be equalized with the rest of the world. That is why education is not important because they can use engineers from India, do their R&D overseas ... They got THEIR politicians to enact THEIR desired trade agreements. I guess Americans will rise up when they can no longer afford cable TV. Maybe then after the brainwashing stops they will wake the fu*k up! One can only hope!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:13 AM

30. meh, this probably should be posted in meta

 

The thread this came from was locked for that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:22 AM

38. For what reason?

Why was it locked? There doesn't seem to be anything in the OP that would warrant a lock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:17 AM

33. +1

It was not that one President waved a wand and suddenly everything changed. We are a government of people - it was organizing ordinary people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:21 AM

37. Beautifully stated. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:25 AM

39. How long did it take to institute Social Security & Medicare?



Who was the 'leader' of the Social Security/Medicare movement? How many crowds of protestors took tear gas, endured arrests, before it was enacted? Did it start small - just for widows and orphans - and develop over the years to include others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:40 AM

46. FDR was bold and progressive, but he left a lot of people out in the cold on Social Security

from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29


____ Most women and minorities were excluded from its benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”



. . . just a reminder that most legislative progress has been historically incremental, even with passage of sweeping initiatives. FDR is the epitome of leadership, yet he was as constrained by the politics of his time as our legislators find themselves today. Actually more so today, as FDR didn't have to get 60 votes to advance his initiatives.

Would FDR find DU as hostile to his historic achievement, as many here today regard the President's own historical health law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:15 PM

60. Thanks for your post. I think some tend to over romanticize the fights of the past.

Incremental change is somehow categorized as weakness these days. If a struggle isn't wrapped up in the time one can complete a video game, then it's seen as an epic fail. We have no patience anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:35 PM

66. Exactly ...

categorized as weaknesss by those that live that incremental change all day and everyday in their off-line worlds; but somehow expect the political world to operate differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:18 PM

101. oh there's been incremental change alright in the other direction

People are running out of patience because they see the degradation of the middle class and the poor for DECADES now and are tired of the chasm between the rich and the poor. This impatience has been a long time coming. Every society has a tipping point where the unemployment is high enough that people finally wake up and start to take notice that they are starving to death while the rich are gorging themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #101)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:27 PM

106. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure, we're not Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:32 PM

107. I'm not talking about Europe

I'm talking about wages right here in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #107)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:48 PM

113. !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:05 PM

56. Approximately ...

How long did it take to institute Social Security & Medicare?


... 160 years, and a world-wide depression.

Who was the 'leader' of the Social Security/Medicare movement?


FDR and a largely pliant, i.e., non-lock stepped, Congress.

How many crowds of protestors took tear gas, endured arrests, before it was enacted?


None that I know of.

Did it start small - just for widows and orphans - and develop over the years to include others?


Yes ... It did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:34 PM

65. Obama, is that you?

You think SS started only for widows and orphans?



Um, you may not know it but the first applicant for SS was a retired autoworker in Cleveland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:48 PM

70. You are quite right ...

it was started for widows, orhans and the elderly. That makes all the difference in this discussion! Not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:35 AM

43. Everything you wrote was on the money and substantiated pretty well. Why was the origional locked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:39 AM

45. Incremental steps lead to the big splashy finale

Just like literally a hundred years of civil rights activism lead to the Civil Rights Act. It would have never come without the thousands of steps taken by starting with one step.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:38 PM

69. Yeak, like starting with a chained CPI

...the splashy finale could be entirely privatized SS !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:55 PM

71. Give it a rest ...

starting with a chained CPI that exempts the elderly, the poor, the disabled and veterans that decreases the planned increase on those that can most afford it ... which is not so different, from the tax rate argument us liberals have been making, all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:57 PM

85. "Exempts the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and veterans"

The chained CPI "exempts the elderly"???????





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:25 PM

91. LOL



Nice! I didn't even catch that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #91)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:45 PM

126. I don't know how ...

You may have missed that ... I have posted the same fact, in every chained CPI thread ... which by the way, is quickly ignored; but not refuted, in order to repeat the narrative later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:51 PM

94. Laugh all you wish; but ...

Yes, the language of the rumored Chained CPI deal does exempt the elderly and the poor and veterans.

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10022030190


It's just the pundits, and us here, conveniently forget to mention this part, in their/our outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:19 PM

102. We forget it because it leaves the rest of us out. It is not a valid argument for chained cpi.

If they have to "exempt" people on the basis of being poor and needy from a change that will hurt all the rest of us....why bother with the change in the first place.

I agree with Blue in AK. It is not healthy for any party to walk and think in lockstep.

Look what happened to the GOP when they did that in 2003/2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:33 PM

108. Do you not agree ...

If they have to "exempt" people on the basis of being poor and needy from a change that will hurt all the rest of us....why bother with the change in the first place.


that changes to Social Security must be made to secure the future of the program?

Do you not agree that any changes to the program be made in a manner consistent with what we are asking in the tax rate discussion ... where those that can afford pay more (receive less) do so?

But at least ... you are the first to acknowledge that it's NOT about the poor, or elderly, or veterans; but rather all about self-interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:59 PM

116. I agree with nothing you said.

I think seniors and the needy are being used as scapegoats to make the party look like they are compromising.

Compromising on the backs of the elderly and the needy to appease the rich and powerful....that is what they are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #116)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:16 PM

119. So you don't "agree" ...

with the SS Commissioner's solvency report?

You think that seniors and the needy are being used as scapegoats ... by exempting them for the rumored Chained CPI deal?

Compromising on the backs of the elderly and the needy ... that have been exempted from harm under the rumored deal?

Yes, the elderly and poor are certainly being used in this fight ... and it ain't the gop OR President Obama (because there were excluded from the rumored deal between boehner and President Obama.

Who does that leave standing ... talking about the elderly and poor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #119)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:59 PM

128. Exempting a few means that harm definitely will be done to others.

You are interested in word games and twisting replies.

I do try to present a position, but I will back off when words are twisted. Not worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #128)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:45 PM

140. How am I playing word games and twisting replies? ...

How is calling for the wealthy to pay a higher tax rate, but not others ... any different from a chained CPI that exempts the elderly, the poor, veterans and the disabled. Those "exempted" from the former (those "earning" $250K and less) means "harm" definitely will be done to those "earning" more than $250K.

The only difference I see is that YOU may be included in the former exemption; but not in the latter. And if that is the case, the objection to a chained CPI is not about the elderly, the poor, veterans or the disabled, since they are exempted; but rather, it's about you.

I don't begrudge anyone for protecting their personal interests ... I just have a slight problem when they do so by framing their objection as some faux concern for universally recognized vulnerable groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:50 PM

133. Congrats on winning Dumb Post of the Week n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #133)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:58 PM

143. Thank you ...

I think ...

What "dumber", a post refuting a patently false lie/narrative, with a verifiable link supporting the refutation; or a simple-assed snarky, but unexplained response to the refutation?

I'll let others decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:01 PM

153. The way I read that ....

is that in the latest proposal submitted by Obama, he apparently did NOT include any exemptions.

Also, what Carney says is that "he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change." Who the "most vulnerable" are was not defined. And if the W.H. thinks that's a good idea, why didn't it include that exemption in the proposal?

It's my understanding that an exemption has to be manually and specifically added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #153)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:37 PM

158. yes ...

the exemptions do have to be secifically added ... and apparently it was included in the rumored deal, as the transcript has Carney saying,
There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10022030190


But that said, No one really knows what is in the most recent proposal; but from what resident Obama has said, the proposal is a re-set to pre-$400K tax cut deal, that DID NOT include chained CPI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #158)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:56 AM

170. No, Carney does NOT say Obama included exemptions in his proposal. He says he "WOULD" include them..

at what point in the future is unknown (Carney doesn't say), or how they get added (Carney doesn't say).

I repeat, just to make my point clear: You are misreading what Carney said. He specifically used language indicating that Obama had NOT included any exemptions in his proposal. Period.

Carney said Obama "WOULD" include those exemptions...meaning in the future. But no specifics are given for that, no time frame, no definition of the "most vulnerable," or anything at all specific. Very vague.

The latest proposal that I'm aware of includes the chained CPI, but once rejected by Boehner, I'm under the impression that proposal is no longer on the table (once rejected, it evaporates).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #170)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:13 AM

174. Come on ...

that's really a reach.

The plain language of the transcrit indicates that whatever Chain CPI proposal put forth would include the exempts ... you do realize in a negotiation you can, and frequently do, present multiple proposals that include the same issues, but reflecting a change in position Carney's statement sets the limit, i.e., no Chained CPI without Exemptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:11 PM

73. What an optimist!

Bleh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:14 PM

59. what's wrong with bold, visionary progressives?

we need a lot more of them in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:35 PM

78. Not a thing ...

We do need far more bold, visionary progressives that understand that progress on social issues is often "frustratingly, grindingly slow; but progress, non-the-less."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:48 PM

92. i disagree, actually

progress on social issues does not have to be slow or painful. the problem is the massive opposition to progress on social issues creating roadblocks that makes change slow. and a culture that accepts that change benefitting the people is inherently a slow process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:05 PM

97. So ...

with all due respect, you are saying reality has it that progress on social issues IS slow and painful, since there IS massive opposition to progress on social issues creating roadblocks that makes change slow. and a culture that accepts that change benefitting the people is inherently a slow process; but in the world I wish existed, it wouldn't be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:21 PM

74. Excellent post

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:32 PM

77. Are you, were you, trying to say

that we ought to me marching in lockstep?

Even if we're going a direction we don't approve of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #77)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:45 PM

80. I'm pointing out the unfortunate political reality ...

that we can't lament the lock-steped obstruction of the gop AND refuse to run the play that Quarterback President Obama has called.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:57 PM

84. We sure as hell can

if the quarterback is calling plays that benefit the other team, and throwing interceptions.

If your metaphor were authentic, the coaches would probably be calling the plays, and they'd yank that quarterback off the field if he couldn't execute them. Since that isn't ever going to happen, the metaphor doesn't really work for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:45 PM

93. Okay ...

Then substitute Coach President Obama as the play-caller.

And, to this point, his play-calling has benefited "Our Team" far more than the other team ... even when the play doesn't result in a touch-down; but only a series of 4 yeard gains. That's the reality of the metaphor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #93)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:13 PM

99. Sorry.

From where I'm standing, he's been throwing everything to the other team. I'm a teacher. "Our team" is public education, and his appointment of Arne Duncan, and their efforts to increase privatization, to adopt republican policies, to further demean teachers, is a deliberate throwing of the issue to the other team; not just calling a few bad plays or executing a few plays badly.

There are no gains, only losses and a punt on this series of downs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #99)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:55 PM

114. thank you!

Education is definitely one issue where the democratic leaders are failing their constituents including Obama. The public school system is failing my son and I am one pissed off momma. I refuse to walk lock stop with a party that does not care if we are failing our students.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #114)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:53 PM

127. You are welcome.

The current mess will not end until we stop making excuses for the Democrats enacting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:06 PM

86. Since that's your reply to my reply to the original post that you're quoting there,

I would like to go on record to state that I stand by my statement. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I will be agitating for progressive change to my dying day, and I will criticize any president, democrat or republican, who continues the rightward shift.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #86)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:14 PM

88. you know it, Blue_in_AK

what is ironic is President Barack Obama would have our back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #86)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:19 PM

103. And I join with you. Lockstep is unhealthy for any party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #103)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:35 PM

111. Agreed ...

lock-step is not healthy; but it does net Partisan victories/results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #111)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:00 PM

117. But at a terrible cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #117)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:17 PM

120. exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #117)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:21 PM

121. Only if you disagree ...

with the policy/position in question.

Remember ... a lack of lock-step voting potential scuttled any consideration of the public option, let alone single-payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #86)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:24 PM

105. I have no problem with ...

advocating/agitating for progressive change ... just when that agitation for progressive change, refuses to acknowledge reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:12 PM

118. The reality is that President Obama is a centrist,

something I have known since the 2008 campaign, which is why he was my last choice during that primary season, so I can't be disappointed in him personally for governing exactly as I imagined he would. Despite my reservations, I voted for him twice for two reasons -- the alternatives were so much worse and I wanted no more republican appointees to the Supreme Court.

But, as I said, I will still be advocating and protesting for more progressive government for the rest of my days, as I've been doing for the past 48 years or so. I am who I am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #118)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:28 PM

124. Agreed ...

though I would say, a left-leaning centrist.

And in the 2008 primary, Candidate Obama was my 3rd choice ... after Kucinich and Edwards.

I, also, voted for him twice for two reasons -- the alternatives were so much worse and I wanted no more republican appointees to the Supreme Court; but, also, for one more reason ... he did, in fact, move the proverbial ball in the right directions, against incredible opposition ... some of which within his own party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #124)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:37 PM

125. As for moving the ball in the right direction,

in some areas, yes, but in others clearly not. As I said, this is where we will agree to disagree.

Personally, I like President Obama a lot. I like the tone he tries to set. But there are many of his policies that I will never agree with. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #86)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:33 PM

109. I stand with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:11 PM

87. DEMOCRACY

there should be NO REQUIREMENT to get the VAPORS over ANY POLITICIAN....what we want is to get results by CONVINCING people to be unified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:34 PM

110. thanks, man

i think of it as a baby step every time i win a pro-gun control argument.
not that i'm changing the mind of the blockhead i'm arguing with, nesessarily
but someone else who is confused might read it, i guess.

do a search on this site for a thread, using 'billions arguments' and add a good one of your own

anything you want, doesn't have to be guns

here's one of those sparks you mentioned:
"It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement. "

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

an article full of ironies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:28 PM

123. One of the greatest threads of all year!!!! K&R, bookmarked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:35 PM

131. On Election Day You Criticized Me For Being White (In An Offensive Way)

I'm somewhat shocked to see you claim to be "a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement", but not fully comprehend bigotry.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021728506#post3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimGinPA (Reply #131)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:33 PM

137. He wasn't criticizing you Jim he was making a humorous comment on the poll worker


who seemed to have selected you out for favorable treatment.

The humor runs along the lines of the famous "white like me" SNL skit.

Since you were the only one that didn't have to show ID then the reason must lie in that you fit a stereotype that the poll worker could identify as being one of the good guys. Seems obvious to me that he was pointing the humor at the poll worker and not at you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimGinPA (Reply #131)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:34 PM

138. Are you kidding me?????

Here's what I said:

Let me guess ... You are a 50-something white male and were carrying a Book of Mormon, displaying your NRA and concealed carry license and you were wearing your heavily soiled ted nugett tee shirt and you had to wipe the Cheetos off you hands in order not leave the orange on the ballot.


In response to:

Everyone In Line At My PA Poll Was Asked To Show ID Except Me ... And they all did. I did point to my signature in the book (upside down) when the poll worker couldn't find it right away & she had watched me read the info sheet on the new "law" while was waiting for the people ahead of me.


I also was given a paper ballot instead of being offered the option of using a machine. I have used paper ballots the last 4 elections & I have no idea if there is a notation of that in the book or not. It was just odd that the others were asked & I wasn't.


My wife voted just after 7 this morning & they didn't ask her for ID either.


I guess you don't grasp the concept of sarcasm ... But some of the other folks on the thread do.

I thought the over the top description of someone who clearly would not be excepted to be of the suppression democgraphic would have given it away ... I guess not. Maybe I should have included the sarcasm thingy ... My bad! No offense intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #138)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:04 PM

144. If you choose to insult one's intelligence...

You should probably pay more attention to things like grammar & spelling.

Nice attempt at deflecting though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimGinPA (Reply #144)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:20 PM

147. Okay ...

Did you read Grant's explanation of HIS (and at least one other reader's) understanding of my post? Or, are your feelings hurt because of your obvious miss ... so you go all grammar and spelling police?

Look . I'm glad you didn't experience a problem voting ... I just wish so many did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:57 PM

152. I've Known Grantcart For Years...

We've done a lot of work together here and had a lot of personal (as well as public) communication. You, not so much.

I seldom disagree with him. In this case, I do. You weren't making fun of a poll worker.

I didn't "miss" your attempt to be funny, I just found it offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimGinPA (Reply #152)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:07 PM

155. With all due respect ...

my intent was exactly what Grant explained. Not knowing a single thing about you, other than your likely have been male (beased solely on your reference to your wife), I picked the most over the top description of the least person likely to be voter suppressed and put it out there.

If you want to believe that I was insulting you ... well, I can't help that. All I can do is tell you that was not my intent. And apologize for the misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:36 PM

139. I found this recently on a CNN blog about Rosa Parks history

Rosa Parks sitting on that bus seat was almost 30 years in the making.

By the time she sat on that seat she was already making fiery publc speeches in a state where that could have gotten her killed



http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/01/opinion-its-time-to-free-rosa-parks-from-the-bus/

In the 1930s, Rosa Parks joined her husband Raymond and others in secret meetings to defend the Scottsboro boys—nine young African-American men accused of raping two white women in Alabama in 1931. In the 1940s, they hosted Voter League meetings, where they encouraged neighbors to register even though it was a dangerous task. In 1943, she joined the Montgomery NAACP and was elected branch secretary. The job required Parks to investigate and document acts of racist and sexist brutality.

It was in this context, in 1944, that Rosa Parks investigated the brutal gang-rape of Recy Taylor, a black woman from Abbeville, Alabama.

Parks took Taylor’s testimony back to Montgomery, where she and other activists organized the “Committee for Equal Justice for Mrs. Recy Taylor.” They launched what the Chicago Defender called the “strongest campaign for equal justice to be seen in a decade.” In 1948, she gave a fiery speech at the state NAACP convention criticizing President Harry Truman’s civil rights initiatives. “No one should feel proud,” she said, “when Negroes every day are being molested.”

Foot fatigue played no role when she refused to relinquish her seat on December 1, 1955. “There had to be a stopping place,” she said, “and this seemed to be the place for me to stop being pushed around. I had decided that I would have to know once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen, even in Montgomery, Alabama.”

Constant death threats forced her to leave Alabama in 1957. When she arrived in Detroit she continued working as an activist. Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, she worked to secure “Black Power,” fought for open housing and against police brutality, railed against the war in Vietnam, and campaigned for George McGovern. She was an ardent fan of Malcolm X and Robert F. Williams, a militant NAACP leader from North Carolina who advocated “armed self-reliance.” She admired Williams so much that she delivered the eulogy at his funeral in 1996.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #139)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:30 PM

148. Thanks ...

Interesting read.

At a Civil Rights Conference in the early 1980s, I met several NAACP members that confirmed that Rosa didn't just happen to be at the right place at the right time; rather, she was the right PERSON, at the right place at the right time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:51 PM

142. The only steps we have been taking since the 1980's

have been to the right. There isn't anymore room on the right to move in the spirit of bipartisan corporatism. I'm standing my ground. The Democrats can play on the rightwing playground if they like but count me out now.


eom, emphatically

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #142)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:34 PM

149. Okay, I understand ...

Just one question:

If that is the field of battle, what "Playground" are you planning to play on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #149)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:21 AM

167. Not that one due to its deliberate inaccuracies.

It will probably take a movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #167)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:50 AM

172. And until ...

that probable movement comes to pass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:52 PM

151. I've learned that every kind of progress in politics usually

involves baby steps. That's why I rarely respond to knee-jerk gripers who aren't getting their pony immediately; it doesn't work that way and never, or rarely, has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:41 PM

159. It seems like there is not a clear division between "holding feet to the fire" and...

 

torches and pitchforks.

I want the President to succeed.

But he has a GOP House.

He has a very light majority in the SCOTUS.

But at the same time, he could close Guantanamo.

Counters that, he is closing up operations in Afghanistan.

But countering that, our drone program has become our weapon of choice.

It's a mixed bag.

And, despite what Republicans may tell you, President Barack Obama is only one person.

I just watched Lincoln, and even when you could outright buy another politician, the job of President STILL tied your hands a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #159)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:03 PM

161. I agree with a lot of what you wrote; but, would point out ...

President Obama did sign the Executive Order to close GITMO ... the House, including several Democrats refused to fund the closure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #161)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:05 PM

162. Makes sense to me...

 

Could he do anything with an Executive Order?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #162)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:32 PM

163. An executive order without funding to effectuate it is ...

merely a executive suggestion. It's that check and balances thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:33 AM

166. Perfect thread. Your knowledge and sound grasp of the facts is exactly what I've come to expect

from the President's supporters, even those of us that may not agree with everything that he's done but still STRONGLY support him, what he's achieved, and what he still has left to do.

Here's the sentence that really encapsulates everything, imho: "The things we enjoy today were built over a period of 50 years, and are continuing to evolve"

There are a loud few here that absolutely refuse to see and/or understand this point. I don't how in hell these people think the world works, and yes it would be perfect to live in a world where wrongs are righted with the snap of a finger, but that has NEVER been the case ANYWHERE. Serious props for this, 1Strong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:49 AM

168. Great post, and in some of your responses you speak well what

I believe many on DU feel but get drowned out by a louder segment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:17 AM

171. My view of what has been pivotal in the civil rights movements...

cumulative (organic, if you will) actions of "the people". If I recall, it was the cumulative effect of what bus riders were able to do in boycotting public transportation that called attention to Rosa Parks.

The saying, "never under-estimate the actions..." of a group of people (sic) explains how change came about. It never is the act of leadership at the top, but if leaders "at the top" choose never to respond, then I guess what you have is a failed "movement".

Maybe these acts are best described in history when told from "A People's History of the United States" prospective, which is what Howard Zinn was attempting to do with that book.

My grandmother, an immigrant from Italy, along with her sister, decided they would forgo their "pay" and not show up the day the Triangle Shirtwaist Company's fire happened. Look at what had to happen to labor on that day for a "progressive labor movement" to start. Cumulative efforts...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:59 PM

177. Correct, change comes from the people, the government does not willingly reform itself.

And leaders don't, they follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:19 PM

181. Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall."
Barack Obama

When he said that, I thought of this thread. Yes I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #181)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:28 PM

182. So did I; but maybe ...

for a slightly different reason. Each of these represent a history where a movement, and ultimately enshrining legislation, followed the collective actions of Mr. and Ms. We D. People.

It reminds of of the proper order of things ... legislatures do not lead us; they follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread