General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan We Have A Toughtful/Respectful Discussion Of Civil Rights Versus Income Inequality ???
Last edited Wed May 13, 2015, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)
I'll start...
When I hear a person say that they support Civil Rights as more important than economic rights...
At first... I Tend to agree.
Yet I hear this "dog-whistle" in that statement...
For years we've heard the phrase..."socially liberal, but fiscally conservative"...
Used to be from Republicans of the North-East persuasion, but is now being heard from both Democrats and Republicans... maybe they're former Republicans that have left the party.
Now... I also believe that Civil Rights are Ultimately... more important that economic rights... in theory.
But I think they are intertwined...
People who live paycheck to paycheck, have an upcoming balloon payment, have no idea how they are gonna make rent, have already lost their house, are struggling to feed their families as their benefits are being cut, etc...
May not spend a lot of time on the problems of others.
This may be by design...
I go with the George Carlin Theory (AKA... Divide And Conquer):
Link: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Carlin
Bonus Video:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I have been doing quite a bit of reading on this.
Economic rights are tied to health, education, job opportunity, which are directly tied to civil rights, and the vote, and an ability to participate in your government.
No, people who are working 2-3 jobs and live in a food desert, and have issues of health related to that, and access to a doctor is marginal at best, usually do not have time to read up on candidates and keep an eye on city hall as well.
There are some who do it. my personal heroes to be honest... among them are the single mom raising her daughter, who also works at burger king and Mickey Ds, and somehow finds time to go to City Hall to testify on her struggles. But the days she does that, she does not sleep... and I am not making that up.
Now back to the lovely poverty report from the US Census... want some data?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The proportion of households in the bottom quintile in 2004 that moved up to a higher quintile in 2007 (30.9 percent) was not statistically different from the proportion of households in the top quintile in 2004 that moved to a lower quintile in 2007 (32.2 percent).
• Households with householders who had lower levels of education were more likely to remain in or move into a lower quintile than households whose house- holders had higher levels of education.
• During the 3-year period from 2009 to 2011, approximately 31.6 percent of the population had at least one spell of poverty lasting 2 or more months.
• Chronic poverty over the 3-year period from 2009 to 2011 was relatively uncommon, with 3.5 percent of the population living in poverty during all 36 months.
It is out of this one
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013
Current Population Reports
And just started going over it.
And point number 3 was during the great recession.
Oh and these reports tend to trail years at times.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)By the way, the data can be found all the way to zip code level. (I just have a hell of a time finding how every time I need to, I should write the procedure down)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)that quote is essentially a straight white male not only saying the class war comes first, but minority issues are just tools of the 1%.
Sorry, but class warriors aren't going to be able to build a broad coalition if they keep that approach.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Politics 101.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and I think it's a bunch of nonsense that only further marginalizes already marginalized groups and does absolutely nothing to build a coalition.
There's an enormous problem with straight white men telling the LGBT community, women, and various communities of color that their issues are secondary to the class war. Treat them like unequal partners, well, new boss, same as the old.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)So as a young straight guy... I start here:
Openly gay San Francisco politician Harvey Milk was instrumental in fighting the measure, and opposition to the proposition from a variety of public figures from California Governor Ronald Reagan to President Jimmy Carter helped to defeat it. Public opinion swung fairly quickly from general support of Proposition 6 to what became overwhelming opposition.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiative
I was in college, and becoming a teacher...
When this shit came down the pike, I got angry and active.
At one "townhall"... I followed a RW Conservative who said, "I don't want Homosexuals teaching their Homosexual ways to our children!"
Right after... I took the podium and said...
"And I don't want any Heterosexuals teaching their Heterosexual ways to OUR children. What the hell happened to Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic ???"
Got a standing ovation from almost all, dude walked out with a red face, and I thought...
Activism can be really cool.
Briggs... was voted down because those conversations were happening all across the state.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Strait white men are not welcome? Nice starting point your "coalition" has there. Please keep us updated on your coalition building progress, I'm sure it will be impressive.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)PROTIP: There's a difference between "no straight white males allowed" and "straight white males shouldn't necessarily be in charge."
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)if they are willing to carry water for everybody else. Make sure to wonder why the damned fools are voting against "their own self interest".
I guess a straight white male who says "we should represent the bottom 80% of Americans" is somehow against black people and black issues, even though according to the 2011 census of wealth, about 91% of black households are in the bottom 75% for wealth.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)you are fighting other people's battles.
It's not your own skin in the game but other people get mad at you for not supporting issues where their skin is in the game.
Some people drink the water, others just carry it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Your post is confusing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but no, it's okay, I love having the privilege of being poor and having a low status job.
But thanks for missing the point and making it personal.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but some people will not let go of that strawman, even years later.
But the story I did tell was about a white woman, and NOT a black woman. There was another black man I mentioned, who happened to get three straight jobs that I applied for.
You'd sorta think that my good friends at the online community I have been a part of for over ten years would have some sympathy for ME and my struggles to find a decent job.
But you'd be wrong.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)As long as you don't say that you didn't get them because (you think) lesser qualified black men or white women were hired instead of you because of affirmative action.
Almost nobody here is going to support you in that.
If you don't know that, then such reasoning may be holding you back. You should think on this.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Although it happens to be in play, which I know from being on the other side of the interview line.
In the case I mentioned, I believe I also said that both of the black men had more qualifications than me.
Although, as it turned out, their superior paper qualifications did not prevent me from being a better worker and a better employee than them (they both stole from the employer, one got fired for it, and the other one kept skipping work every Friday to go out drinking with his co-workers at his other construction job.)
As I mentioned in the interview, since I had already worked there for six months, they knew what they were getting with me, whereas with other people it is really just a guess. They still bent over backwards to avoid promoting me.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Neat trick
daleanime
(17,796 posts)and yes, that includes me, is better served not by building their own coalition, but by joining and supporting others. By working with several related groups we can help create an effect like that 'broad coalition' we need. 
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and "working with" others, though not necessarily "joining" (unless the complete phrase is "joining WITH"
and definitely NOT attempting to dictate the priority(ies) of, or define the terms of engagement for, those others.
I think that is the push back, many would be allies see as divisiveness.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)just a sad result of our history and a tight rope that we will have to walk.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Wealth inequity is one of the primary characteristics, and causes and effects, of suppression of our civil rights, be they race or gender or sexual identity-based.
The sooner all of it's victims come together under this united feature of oppression and work together to fight it, the sooner each of us will overcome and rise up out of it.
The oppressors will have to suffer, however.
They may have to give up second or third homes in La Jolla and Chappaqua, and may need to travel more modestly and measure their personal wealth in millions rather than in billions, that the rest of us might have a balanced meal more frequently.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if that were true, then why are wealthy People of Color denied civil rights? ... why are wealthy women denied the right to control they bodies? ... why are wealthy members of the LGBT community denied the right to married who they love?
Granted being poor rubs salt in those societal wounds; but, more money is a weak tonic.
On the other, what civil rights are straight, white (Christian) males denied?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)People of color and with different sexual identities suffer disproportionately more from oppression by the dominant culture (s).
However, that dominant culture is increasingly, though not exclusively, marked by asymmetrical power dynamics- sometimes by sheer numbers and other times by greater economic and political strength.
My position isn't that race doesn't matter, it most certainly does.
My positions is that race AND economic oppression BOTH matter and are so commonly found together that we can identify commonality among a broad range of oppressed groups.
Thus, gays and lesbians and blacks and physically impacted and undocumented people ALL suffer and have a righteous grievance.
If they can form a coalition, and it can direct that coherent energy like a laser uses coherent light, that coalition can burn up the oppressors.
If, on the other hand, each group insists that forming a coalition somehow diminishes their pain and their plight, then it's far less likely to produce results.
The RW loves this, the powers that be love that the oppressed are balkanized in their efforts, don't speak the same language, don't fight the same battle. That makes it easy on them.
Groups can form to fight together without losing their identity.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Thus, gays and lesbians and blacks and physically impacted and undocumented people ALL suffer and have a righteous grievance.
If they can form a coalition, and it can direct that coherent energy like a laser uses coherent light, that coalition can burn up the oppressors.
Maybe if you could explain the "commonality of oppression" that the straight, white, (Christian) male shares with gays and lesbians and blacks and physically impacted and undocumented people ... economic injustice/oppression, right?
Then, explain how focusing on economic injustice/oppression, changes the status quo for gays and lesbians and blacks and physically impacted and undocumented people, in terms of the acknowledged civil injustice?
There already are coalitions of gays and lesbians and blacks and physically impacted and undocumented people that are focused on our/their collective denial, both, civil and economic justice ... we/they are not fragmented in that aim; however, the there is fragmentation where (please forgive the imperfect analogy) the straight, white (Christian) male claims, "we are all drowning together", when gays and lesbians and blacks and physically impacted and undocumented people are underwater, and the straight, white (Christian) male is in the water; but, (arguably) standing on the shoulders of the gays and lesbians and blacks and physically impacted and undocumented people ... and, this is doubly so, for the 70 - 98%ers, that seem find the economic (in)justice argument so appealing.
Interesting ... the whole economic (in)justice argument is based in denying/minimizing group identity. And, the balkanization occurs, only when that group identity is denied/minimized, in favor of the "We are all drowning together" narrative. The balkanization that you feel is those groups resisting being minimized by those we/they know have only a pedestrian interest in our economic up-lift.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It might be a problem with stereotyping and broadbrushing.
No good can come of that point of departure, it's the very same dynamic that oppresses people of color and the rest.
FWIW, I identify with none of those labels: straight, white, Christian, or male, but I don't believe that anyone who fits the description is automatically guilty of anything whatsoever.
It ends up being, therefore, a distraction.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I am referencing straight, white, (Christian) males, as a class, i.e., group, cohort, sub-population, not referencing individuals ... which is the basis of all societal discussion ... and I have no problem with that.
"automatically Guilty of"?
Nor, do I ... however, I am speaking of a specific cohort that want to have these discussions, while denying/minimizing group identity/interests in favor of faux, or at best, incomplete, commonality.
Secondly, if you do not identify with straight, white, Christian, or male (class) label ... and I have no real reason to doubt you ... perhaps you could tell me how putting more money in your pocket (and BTW, theirs) would resolve the civil injustice you face?
I guess that's true ... but then, any discussion that stands in opposition from any desired end, is a "distraction" ... for those seeking that particular end.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Then naturally, you have refused any benefit or advantage in your life, over the long term and day in and day out, that you have received for being white, male and straight.
And likewise, you have made sure that everything in your life has been and is as difficult for you as it would be if you were not white and/or not male and/or not straight.
If you haven't done all the above, then your point about labels is meaningless.
As many of us suspect it truly is.
(as for me, yes I've benefited from the advantages given to people in my demographic (you call those "labels" , and while I don't know exactly what to do about that (but I have to do something), the first step is not pretending that I'm above all that).
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...an irrational number, or an imaginary number, anything but "four".
Now come on, let's have a hug!
We should put aside our differences and our labels and work together for the common good.
How's Bernie looking to folks in your circles?
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)mansplain this all away. 
It seems like that's what's going on when people say that civil rights issues will go away if everyone has enough money...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The fact that those arguing that will stand to get some more money in their pocket is just a coincidence ... but it's a shame, it leaves everyone else at the status quo.
betsuni
(25,468 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and that each race that is discriminated against is a minority, isn't it wise for all minorities including racial minorities to seek allies among members of the majority?
To build a coalition it seems to me it is wise to find issues that include people who may not prioritize the issues the way that I would. As a woman, I want to build a coalition with minorities who suffer from gender discrimination in the workplace. I want to build a coalition with LGBTs who suffer from discrimination based on their gender identification.
How can we build a coalition? By finding issues that are of common interest to us. In my view, the most obvious issue that is common to people of color (in my area that is more Hispanics than African-Americans and so I use the term, people of color), to LGBTs, to women and to other groups that suffer discrimination and might I add, older workers 40+, regardless of gender, race, etc. is JOB DISCRIMINATION, a very economic issue.
So to build a coalition, we need to focus on economic issues. And that should not detract from our support for civil rights issues, especially racial, gender, religious, gender, etc. equality.
I think we should focus on economic issues in order to bring people together and build a coalition. But we must also focus on group identity issues and make sure we include those issues in building a coalition on economic issues.
There is one problem with say focusing on women's issues and that is that too often we are saying to men "You cannot know our pain. You cannot know our loss. We have been discriminated against for thousands of years. . . .. etc." and thus exclude men from our fight. We need to include precisely those among those whom we perceive as our oppressors in our efforts to fight for civil rights. We exclude people who need to change, and when we do that, we actually impede a dialogue and make it more difficult for them to understand, to empathize and to change.
Whereas with economic issues, we all share the insecurities and problems so that is a good place to start to build a coalition.
TM99
(8,352 posts)but it rarely generates any discussion.
http://publicautonomy.org/2014/01/27/the-rise-of-the-post-new-left-political-vocabulary/
The Post New Left political vocabulary is incredibly different than the New Left vocabulary of the 60's through the early 90's. Coalition building is just not a part of this new vocabulary.
And that will ultimately fuck us all. It is all about my issues, my minority group, and my safe space. It is no longer about looking for commonalities of oppression. Instead there are lectures on privilege, micro-aggressions and the like. I am probably one of the few minorities on DU that recognizes that this new language is causing more problems than it solves.
On the most basic levels, we have all got areas where we have been abused, hurt, discriminated against, and fear for our economic and physical safety. Some of us have had it more than others. But it should not be a pissing contest, but rather an empathic way for all of us to find commonalities and fight the oppression.
And I completely agree that right now that problem and insecurity is economic. If you are not a part of 1% or even the 10%, you are economically unsafe and oppressed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I assume you are, too; but, are you willing to listen?
Yes. But what you seem to be missing is this: It is not to my (or insert any oppressed minority) benefit to seek an alliance with ALL others, simply because they are members of the majority class ... particularly, it works to our detriment to seek alliance with those majority members that work to reinforce the status quo, while we work to advance our common grievance ... that is not an alliance, that is servitude.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)With what other groups would you consider an alliance to perhaps be useful?
Martin Luther King worked a lot with white pastors. He spoke to white groups. Do you think that would work today? I realize that the religious community has changed a lot since the 1960s, but doesn't that alliance help?
What about civil rights lawyers who are white?
What about people of other racial minorities?
What about women?
What about the disabled?
Etc.
Would you pick certain groups that are OK and can be trusted? Or would you accept alliances with people who are interested in supporting civil rights of all kinds?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)our common grievance, include economic (in)justice.
Any group that is willing to fight injustice, in what ever form it is found.
Yes he did ... Yes he did ... Absolutely ... Absolutely!
What about people of other racial minorities?
What about women?
What about the disabled?
Etc.
Yes ... all of these groups.
I'll take this segment in reverse order, as it gets to the point I have been attempting to make ...
Yes, I accept all alliances with people interested in supporting civil rights of all kinds. And, yes, you pick certain groups that are okay and CAN BE TRUSTED. And/but, when someone assumes to tell me they better understand my life condition than I do ... that is not us getting off to a good and trusting start ... that smacks of paternalism and privilege. When someone dismisses/minimizes those interest that I tell them are of interests to me ... that is not us getting off to a good and trusting start ... when someone tells me that the civil rights that I lack are less of a priority than the economic justice we lack, we are not off to a good and trusting start ...
And here's why ... we (PoC, and other marginalized groups) have done this dance before (the tenant farmer associations of the early 1900s, for an example) ... and we ended up with just a different majority member to share crops for.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I hope you are not supporting Hillary because she will be "just a different majority member to share crops for," and not only for African-Americans.
Bill Clinton cut welfare payments. Believe it or not, that is white-speak for incarcerating and killing black males or marginalizing them from society by making their labor and skills worthless with job exports and immigration (H1-Bs, etc.) resulting in their being homeless and then forcing the moms of the children to work at very low wages for jobs that don't need to be done (like taking care of the children of the rich) in order to subsist.
If you are wealthy, you may not see that reality, but that is how it works. In the psyche of most white people (probably not on DU) economic issues are basic to racial discrimination and other issues. And exporting American jobs with these trade agreements aggravates the situation.
"Free" trade which Hillary has not joined Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to warn against and if my guess is correct, probably loves, is a big threat to equality for African-Americans. The TPP will be great for Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers and terrible for the rest of us especially African-Americans.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I like Bernie, for what he is saying; but, his General Election electability, has me concerned ... the American electorate is a very fickle bunch.
At this point, my electioneering will be limited to voter registration efforts. But I will work hard, and vote, for whomever is the Democratic nominee.
Why are you talking to me about what Bill did? ETA: especially, in this discussion?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)so Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, and Neil Patrick Harris is underwater and so is Barack Obama and Tiger Woods and Oprah, while I am standing on their shoulders?
I really think it is the 70-98%ers who find social issues so appealing. Isn't that YOUR socio-economic group? Whereas my own group is about 115% of the poverty line.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes ... that IS my economic class. Imagine where I might be but for the discrimination I have faced?
I'm sorry ... imagine where you might be, if you face discrimination.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)the nsa spies on everyone
and while stop and frisk targets more poc that doesnt help the white,straight male who is stopped with no probable cause
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)people than to people of color in my experience.
I used to work for an African-American woman. Both of us got stopped for a left turn at nearly the same corner (they had just changed the sign so that you could not make a left turn). She got a ticket. I did not. The only differences between us were that she was African-American and had a much newer, nicer car than I did.
It may have been just a matter of a different police officer, but I doubt it. I think she was ticketed because she was African-American. I think that is one of the areas in which race matters a lot.
Anecdotal I know, but supportive of a lot of people's experience.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)and 15% are white....are the whites civil rights not violated also?
or do they not matter because they are white?
i would like to see all illegal activity stopped, afterall the 4th amendment is still the law of the land for both poc and whites...isn't it?
if i remember ww2 correctly hitler started his reign of terror with gypsys, an unpopular group with little power but it sure did not stop there
that is how the ptb work, deny the rights of a small group with little power ,when everyone is "used" to it or accepts it they target the next group...until everyone but the 1%ers are under control
when whites realize this hopefully we will bind with our poc brothers and sisters and stop the unconstitutional activity that affects us all
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)A certain low percentage of stops will be mistakes and will be "illegal" in that sense. But the people stopped will simply be stopped and go on their way.
The problems with the illegal stops in the African-American community are first that there are so disproportionately many of them.
Second, that way out of bounds high number of stops suggests racial profiling. This would not be surprising. Police officers are hired to stop crime, and one of the things that can be done to stop crime is to stop people for suspicious behavior. So if police make a lot of stops, it looks like they are doing a good job and deserve to be hired and paid. There is an incentive for police officers to stop a lot of people.
It is easy to stop people who can be easily identified. An African-American driving a really nice car is a good target. Hmmmm. African-American sets off the "possible perpetrators" in the dense and overly busy mind of the subconsciously racist officer and he stops the car. An African-American running is also a good target. "He could be running from a crime," the officer tells himself. Same for jaywalkers. "Is he jaywalking to get away from a crime scene?" All of these stops are made because the officer's gut reaction to dark skin is "criminal." The same officer seeing a white person driving a nice car or running or jaywalking might be "nice car," "in a hurry," or "got his/her reasons."
And then, after the stop of the African-American, the racist officer who probably does not think of him/herself as racist at all expects resistance, braces for it, acts therefore belligerent and frightened at the same time, and anticipating, expecting resistance to arrest, ends up in a violent or ugly confrontation. In the stop with the white person, the officer anticipates no problem, relaxes, smiles, checks the ID and goes on.
That's how those numbers get so out of proportion.
I should add that police officers may categorize neighborhoods by race. This is a Latino or a white or a black community and then if someone who is not of that race appears, the officer kind of wonders why.
Whether the civil rights of a white person were violated is not so difficult to determine on a case-by-case basis, but whether the rights of a black person were actually violated by racial profiling that was subconscious on the part of the officer (even an African-American officer can be racist and can stereotype simply because of the existence of these true but misleading statistics) is more complex because the officer may be doing what officers normally do and that may be racial profiling. In fact, it often is.
Many years ago, I was on a committee to locate a building for a non-profit organization. I callled the police to see what the crime rate was in a certain area near a certain street. The officer told me (and asked me not to tell anyone the specifics) that the street I had named was a place where the officers cruised to give tickets when they needed to make a quota. We did not buy the property. I would not claim that officers always have quotas or that they cruise areas with African-Americans or like to work in them because they can give a lot of tickets or make a lot of arrests, but it is very believable to me that they are more alert and watch more if they see an African-American. And that is not the only group of people that is likely to get a lot of attention from the police. But it is the most affected by this phenomenon and the most likely to be arrested or killed.
Those are some of the reasons the numbers are so out of proportion, so unbelievably way out of proportion.
And then, of course, there is the fact that a white person might have the money to hire a really sharp lawyer. An African-American, odds are high that he/she will settle or have to settle for the public defender with whom the prosecutor's office makes deals all the time.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)the nsa scooping up every fragment of electronic communications is illegal because it violates the 4th amendment
both lack probable cause
sbm asked what civil rights of white men are being violated and i gave those 2 examples
i am not denying that poc are more effected than whites, i am saying there is a historic reason they are targeted and carlin nails it...to keep us fighting among ourselves,until it is our groups turn to be targeted, by then it is too late
the 85/15 split are the numbers i remember from nyc's stop and frisk program
and i ask again...how does the fact that only 15% of the stops were on whites help the white guy that was stopped?
i find your last paragraph insulting...generalizations usually are
i have had several white family members that have had to rely on pd,that would not happen to sbm (if he is as wealthy as he claims)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)recognition of civil rights stick. Conversely claims for civil rights should include claims for economic rights. That is the road down which Dr King was travelling the last several years of his life, and if he saw the two as intertwined, that's a more than sound enough judgment for me.
All of the oppressed, who have been divided into neat parcels by TPTB and by their own actions, need to see the commonality of their oppression and not allow the tenth-percenters to continue dividing them. They (we) also need to wise up and realize that arguing about who has it worse under the thumb of the billionaire class is 100% counterproductive. It's what TPTB WANT US TO DO.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)which is why the term 'economic democracy' resonates so powerfully with my higher angels.
Which is why I love worker-owned businesses as a way to solidly anchor both jobs and profits
into the local community... the more the better in ALL sectors of economy.
Which is why promoting worker-owned businesses is part of Bernie Sanders' 12-point Economic
Platform to recover some balance and fairness in our economy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/an-economic-agenda-for-am_b_6249022.html
Which is why I love Prof. Richard Wolff's lectures and talks:
http://rdwolff.com/content/economic-prosperity-and-economic-democracy-worker-co-op-solution
I love your post WillyT, as usual.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)As SOS, we see that they've turned up to 11 US pressure on foreign governments to back off from interfering with what works for multinational corporations, especially energy interests.
Gone are the days of lobbying for equal rights for women, food programs, etc.; we're in the business of business!
It's "Economic Statecraft"!
She supports promoting trade and multinational corporations running the show over sovereign goverments (they are so unreliable).
"Economic Statecraft" = it's how the Secretary of State makes other nations safe for people like the Koch Brothers.
She warns against "state capitalism", says private boards and investors offer more transparency and accountability:
"Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises... ...often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors."
Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases.
But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors.
And then, diplomatic challenges arise when states abuse their economic advantage to bully their neighbors or box out competitors, like when we see countries cut off gas flows in the middle of winter over a political disagreement.
So, the State Department, working with seven other U.S. Government agencies, launched a comprehensive study on state capitalism.
And in the coming weeks, we should see a final report with detailed recommendations for how we engage on the challenges posed.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200664.htm
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)the choice facing us between Clinton v. Sanders could not be more clear, could it?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to anyone but the highest top brass really needs to lay off huffing paint and read some Greg Palast.
And there is ever only one motive - MORE, MORE, MORE.
As one of the Koch brothers famously said - I only want my fair share, WHICH IS ALL OF IT.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Virtually fascistic. I did not know that Hillary Clinton was THAT bad. My eyes have been opened.
Go, Bernie.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)please explain how "economic democracy", or worker-owned businesses, or Bernie's 12-point Economic plan protects my civil right to vote; or, woman's right to control her own body; or, a member of the LGBT community to marry the person they love; or, the atheists right to be free from religion?
So, no ... they are not virtually synonymous; or rather, they are virtually synonymous to those born into NOT having to live the difference.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)which is where the "virtual" part comes in: they're not totally synonymous.
The reason I emphasize economic democracy is that it's the aspect of democracy that
is so sorely lacking in this country, which in turn robs ethnic and other minorities of their
rightful place at the economic table, forcing them to try to survive only on the crumbs that
fall off the table.
Of course we need to make some distinction between civil and economic rights. We need both
to live in a society where there's equal opportunity for all, not just a handful of obscenely wealthy
white guys.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
One without the other is like Bogie without Bacall.
G_j
(40,366 posts)Poor People's Campaign
The Poor People's Campaign was a 1968 effort to gain economic justice for poor people in the United States. It was organized by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and carried out under the leadership of Ralph Abernathy in the wake of King's assassination.
The Campaign demanded economic and human rights for poor Americans of diverse backgrounds. After presenting an organized set of demands to Congress and executive agencies, participants set up a 3000-person tent city on the Washington Mall, where they stayed for six weeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign
----------
Beyond Civil Rights
THE FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY & MILITARISM
After the successful voting rights march in Alabama, King was unable to garner similar support for his effort to confront the problems of northern urban blacks. Early in 1966 he, together with local activist Al Raby, launched a major campaign against poverty and other urban problems and moved his family into an apartment in Chicago’s black ghetto. As King shifted the focus of his activities to the North, however, he discovered that the tactics used in the South were not as effective in Chicago.
--
In December 1967 King announced the formation of the Poor People’s Campaign, designed to prod the federal government to strengthen its antipoverty efforts. King and other SCLC workers began to recruit poor people and antipoverty activists to come to Washington, D.C., to lobby on behalf of improved antipoverty programs. This effort was in its early stages when King became involved in the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike in Tennessee.
- See more at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/beyond-civil-rights#sthash.iZdB2U3Q.dpuf
MIK Jr. knew.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Of the people living in poverty
areas in 2010, 51.1 percent lived
in central cities of metropolitan
areas, 28.6 percent in suburban
areas, and 20.4 percent lived
outside of metropolitan areas.
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-27.pdf
G_j
(40,366 posts)that is for sure! Those stats say it all.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)(new shiny) when was the last time you heard those stats on the tv machine?
I know I will have a big piece on inner city poverty (hopefully by next week). I have been gathering the data, from multiple sources, but it angers me to no end. Because this is the shit that really matters. Yes, we had a train wreck, and yes people died and were hurt, but taking 24\7 to speak about that, and ONLY THAT, to the exclusion of the rest of the news cycle is a problem.
This is why people think the news is really broken.
By the way, where the wreck happened, is not the wealthiest areas of Philly. Some of the challenges the census data has for urban areas in general... they exist in that area.
These include
Lead in old housing stock... boy did Philly had one of the epidemic zones... Baltimore, DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Diego are other well known.
Bad schools
Likely a food desert...
They have the reporters there, why not have a few of the reporters go INTO THE DAMN COMMUNITY and talk about these issues? I mean, they are already there... what am I thinking? I know.
G_j
(40,366 posts)As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in a December 2013 report, a new safety system called “positive train control” (PTC) was supposed to be implemented by the end of 2015 precisely to prevent accidents caused by human factors. This system and its accompanying 2015 deadline were mandated under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which was passed in response to several fatal rail accidents between 2002 and 2008. PTC is a “groundbreaking” wireless communications system comprised of “integrated technologies capable of preventing collisions, over-speed derailments and unintended train movements.” However, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), charged with overseeing PTC’s development and roll-out, had not implemented it on that stretch of rail, as Matthew Yglesias of Vox first noted.
“Based on what we know right now, we feel that had such a system been installed in this section of track, this accident would not have occurred,” Robert Sumwalt, a board member of the National Transportation Safety Board, told Reuters.
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/infrastructure-government/amtrak-safety-rail-transit-and-infrastructure-issues-research-roundup#sthash.FCg6HFu7.dpuf
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but my issue is that none of the reports has included the neighborhood where this happened. Well not beyond asking man n the street witness, and how do you feel? (I swear I have almost seen reporters assaulted for asking that STUPID question, not on this necessarily, but.)
The Positive Train Control is infrastructure, but also it is the broken sewer pipes, and the rest of it. Why not talk about that neighborhood, because they will be negatively impacted.
G_j
(40,366 posts)I just suspect that their safety was not considered a first priority either.
What you are saying reminds of that wonderful confrontation between a young black man and Geraldo Revera in Baltimore.
'Where are you the rest of the days of the year?'
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)One of the objective of the paper I run was... covering the neighborhoods. We even warned city council. They thought we were kidding.
And when we just started we were pointedly asked if we actually cared by folks in Mt. Hope? People were incredulous. We have been on the issues on and off for more than six months now. I would say 9, that be since we started.
We just had to find some contacts and all that. The 182.5 cases gave us some in. If we have a riot I suspect, we will be somewhat safe, or as safe as you can be. My read is that we are one critical incident from people really taking to the streets. The rest, will depend on the cops largely.
Yeah, the School District still ignores us, (I mean that) since we are small independent media. But the small indie media is spreading how things are in the hood. Some of the crap, you can find the droppings spread all over the internets. Some reports, they give them to other media, and we just download them 
Food desert. Yes, we got it. (more like a swamp), lead... I even now have the numbers of kids under surveillance from County, deep in the HHSA site for county. Schools... got graduation rates. And they are not nice.
I am sure that will not make many people happy. None wants to talk about these things. None wants to acknowledge that we are keeping some people in a poverty trap.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)And he was so right, even now people can't see it, or worse refuse to see it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)See post #2... Hes building a coalition that doesn't include strait white men.
If only Carlin could have been born any other race! Damn those inconvenient white males
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)But neither income inequality or my civil rights are distractions. They are both important, but equality is not a wedge issue meant to divide us. I don't care if poor straight, white people can't get on board with a fight that includes the rights of LGBT people and people of color. It is our fight, whether they like it or not. And we will win, with or without them, and they too will still be better for it.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I don't think you and Democraticwing are saying the same thing. In fact ... I think you two are saying the opposite.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I happen to agree.
Refusing to demand for both at the same time will not lead to an optimal result for anyone. One can be fierce for civil rights while also being fierce on issues that would lessen severe income and wealth inequality. It's really not that hard, and there are actually a few politicians that are great on both. Now, if we could only increase the share of Democrats that are great on both we ALL would be doing a hell of a lot better.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
That's what MLK was workng on in his final days.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
EVERYONE getting the shitty end of the stick of predatory capitalism needs to hang together, because they are already building the gallows to hang us all separately.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)The reason homophobia exists, for one thing, is the societal assumption that LGBT people can't have children. In a capitalist system this means we aren't producing future workers, and the system needs more (mostly cheap) labor to survive. That doesn't necessarily mean that LGBT people can't have children (many do, in fact) but the ideal world for the capitalists is to put everyone into relationships where a man and a woman are breeding new children to enter the workforce.
This is the heart of sexism too: why do these people detest abortion and birth control? Because it allows women to choose how many children they have instead of giving birth to hordes of new workers. The capitalists also wish to confine women to the home, because they can raise these large amounts of children while performing large amounts of unpaid domestic labor. This establishes the system of patriarchy in which women are exploited to the extent that they do most of the world's work but own so little of the property.
Racism is probably the most easily identifiable, for American capitalism was actually built upon the concept of unpaid labor in the form of slavery. This has persisted since, and the reason the capitalists want to keep minorities poor is so they can have a permanent underclass to exploit for cheap labor. The civil rights movement was steeped in socialist critique of the capitalist system--not just MLK, but also W.E.B DuBois, Bayard Rustin, A. Phillip Randolph, etc. This of course has managed to manifest itself in the racist systems we used to oppress Hispanics and Asians as well. The system of illegal immigration is set up not just to keep the "undesirable" out of America, but also because undocumented workers can be legally paid less than human wages for their work. Who are they going to call, the government who would send them back to their home countries?
If this all seems dark, it's because capitalism is very dark. Some would even go so far to call it evil. We really have to fight it, not just for the disaffected white working class who no longer vote Democrat, but because it's the common enemy of all who find themselves oppressed.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)Re this -
Look at the forced sterilization (happened well into the late 1970's in N.C.) and baby grabs of black women in America. There is something imprinted on our souls from the Jim Crow and Post Jim Crow Eras that says our ability to bear children is a blight on America. That's a piece of the puzzle that shows a distinct difference in our experiences as women in this country.
Last month we had energy on the boards around a woman whose baby was literally cut from her body out in Colorado. She is a white woman - survived - her almost full term baby did not. Several of the AA women at DU had to take our feelings about that to p.m. We are all stridently pro choice - however . . . We had an empathy towards that woman and yes - that baby - that is not always welcome in pro choice circles.
It wasn't about capitalism, workers, the masses, the hordes - it was about the "traditionally less than status" of our femininity -and empathizing with that woman who we perceived has having had her child literally ripped away from her. And that's imprinted on our souls from a long long time ago.
And the two pm's from Native American women at DU? Priceless. Sharing the orphanage experiences of their family members. There are some chilling stories about Native children ripped from their families in this country to "make them American".
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)but I agree it works that way.
The people who are trying to separate the two are trying to figure out how to unite the Democratic party and get certain civil rights issues defended when they see there is fundamental disagreement over social justice/economic issues.
What complicates this issue is people who tend to see economic issues as underlying and inseparable from the civil rights issues also see the abnegation of social justice issues as THE defining feature of Republicans. Thus the Dems who are trying to "unite" by trimming off the economic issues seem like they are redefining the party to the right and abandoning partisans of traditional platform elements as"far left". Naturally they bristle, cry foul, and jury alert at any suggestion they might be purveying rightwing ideas. All they see is the logic of unity and trying to win to get what THEY want - a limited raft of civil rights protections that are enough for them for now.
IMHO, social justice and civil rights cannot be separated. Attempting to "unite" only under civil rights (which will chiefly mean gay marriage, equal pay for equal work, and holding on to Roe v. Wade) will turn into defense of the civil rights wealthy white people are most interested in. The call for "unity" under elite white leadership with no concessions to social justice is fatuous and hollow. Any poor person that follows that leader is a chump.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Exactly !!!
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)
In all of these discussions at DU - I've never seen this question as a topic of discussion:
Blacks are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. In every economic class - we consistently vote Democratic.
Why are black Americans - such as 1Strong and myself Democratic Party members? Why do we consistently take the side of the last, the least, the lost in America? Why don't we retreat from the right for people to make a DECENT living? To not subsist?
Maybe it's because from our place of Economic comfort - we can focus on the basic needs of others? At the same time - I worry that my nephew - starting on Walll Street this month - will be shot by a Zimmie type - someone who has never worked a hard day in his life or accomplished much of anything - can shoot/murder him and get away with it?
That's the reality for black mothers, aunts, sisters, grandmothers of all black men in America - regardless of our economic standing.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Have you noticed this is also true of GLBT and Jews? Both groups which are constantly accused of having disposable income or being rich? Which groups are the primary victims of hate crimes? African-Americans, GLBT, and Jews, the top three. The last two groups are often accused of not pulling their weight. All three groups are overly criticized when any member of our groups wanders off the field to the other side. Democrats lost an election? Notice all the articles about those groups being placed under a microscope.
All those groups have various desires, concerns, and trials and tribulations, sometimes similar, sometimes very different, but what seems to be a constant is we are not considered equals, yet are supposed to act as if we are! Even worse, we are often pitted against one another. Gee, I wonder who is doing that?! Just the Republicans?! Naaah!
Social justice...civil rights...EQUALITY...is often taken for granted by those who don't ever have to consider it or can't see past their own noses.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)Isn't it? In a sad kind of way.
Take it one more step -
We are not considered equals.
We are supposed to act as if we are.
When we point it out - that we are not treated equally - it totally harshes some giddy. 
How
DARE you point this out!
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Not a bad thing in my eyes. You, BlueNorthwest, 1SBM, and a few others aren't playing fair by bringing your experiences and the experiences of your representative groups to light! NO FAIR! Which, of course, is the point they seem to not understand...it isn't FAIR. Of course, when a "discussion" starts out in a passive-aggressive, argumentative fashion, a productive discussion is all but a fantasy. The upside is there will be a few, reading our posts and those like the ones mentioned, who might finally have an "a-ha" moment.
We can hope!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And when we DO by speaking our voices, loudly, we are alternately ignored or attacked as divisive and a distraction from the REAL issue..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My response:
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Power inequities reverberate, and marginalized groups suffer economically first, most, and longest.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)part. There's a reason for that. Civil rights and economic rights are so connected a person should just say 'rights'. The confusion around this is painful to watch. When people say 'gay rights don't matter if you can't get a job' all they are doing is announcing that they have no idea the LGBT people face legal discrimination in 29 States with no Federal protections at all. It means they have no idea what the concerns and actions of the LGBT community are nor what they have been over the years.
The same things with different specifics will apply to any other minority group I am sure. It's people who have civil rights and money that are sure getting more money is the most important thing.
Try to learn to live with the fact that straight white men are no longer the only people steering the progressive agenda.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)This whole "civil rights vs economic equality" battle here is really based in deeply entrenched majority privilege. I have yet to see one person who is more active in civil rights claim economic equality is not important, but I have seen our issues and concerns called "wedge issues/hot button issues/distractions."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to incorporate discrimination in employment issues into that thinking even when repeatedly challenged to do so. The same is true for other DU's who preach that same straight man's sermon. One of them with a screen name indicating residence in one of the worst of the 29 pro discrimination States snapped at me ' you can't eat your rights, without a job your rights are worthless'. The uncaring, uninformed and towering ignorance of such statements is frustrating. What they claim is basically a conservative view 'Minority rights do not matter, what matters is money and the only money that matters is my money'. That's what Republicans say as well. It is exactly what Republicans say.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)wanting us to believe they are BOTH important, as they hold up the economic justice forefront pushing us to the back of the bus.
truly, inspiring, the pretzeling.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Who is "pushing us to the back of the bus"?
I know I've asked you this before, but you never bother to answer.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Do you bother to answer when others ask the same question? I know very well how you feel about me, but sure you could deign to answer someone. I'm not the only one to ask.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)others for three years, your agenda's are clear and i do not bother. it is well a waste of my time and effort.
you are the....
i do not believe it happened, or IF it happened, kinda dismissal.
no sense even bothering with that, as you totally do not experience any of it, and refuse to listen to those of us that do.
your experience is the only position you come from
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Sense. I think you meant sense.
"your agenda's are clear"
First, you don't need an apostrophe in "agendas." Second, Seabeyond, I am frankly amazed that you of all people have the nerve to accuse anybody of having an agenda.
As for what I experience or do not, you have no idea, and you don't care to know because it doesn't fit in the picture you want to paint for everybody.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)What are you talking about? Seriously.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And those who parrot sick twisted MRA talking points.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,910 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Social Justice and Economic Justice are absolutely divisible ... but, the division only works to benefit the straight, white (Christian) male (as a class) ... All socially disenfranchised groups are, also, negatively affected by economic injustice ... even the wealthy among - where might Oprah be; but, for her race? ... where might her corporation be; but for, its ownership?
The straight, white (Christian) male (as a class) doesn't have to puzzle over any such concerns.
I do, however, agree with everything else you have written.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The RIGHT to a job, fair housing, education, freedom from oppression and harassment by the police, the right to vote, the right to health, the right to equal justice, the right to dignity, all of these are a part of civil rights. Equality in all ways is civil rights and economic justice is a part of that.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I could not possibly agree more.
That was Dr King's message for the last years of his life. Who am I to second-guess Martin Luther King, Jr.?
TM99
(8,352 posts)and I doubt few have even read his works, but Abraham Maslow showed the truth of economic before social justice in his book Motivation and Personality.
So as not to bore those not into psychology like I am, I will summarize it quickly.
Basically, Maslow studied highly functioning and even genius types to see how they were able to accomplish what they were and are accomplishing.
From this he devised his now famous 'hierarchy of needs'.
The very two bottom rungs on this ladder are physiological needs and safety. We all must have adequate food and shelter from the elements. We must have a basic level of health and physical well-being. We can not focus on anything else unless those needs are met. The next level is safety. One aspect is safety from harm - be it war, weather related, violence to our person with in a family or via crime, etc. But the other aspect that rarely is talked about that he focused a lot of attention on was economic safety. We must have economic security. We must have the ability to save and secure our future retirement. We must have a safety net against a devastating illness or accident.
These two basic needs must be met before we can worry about love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. So much of today's social justice is about these later needs with a complete ignoring of the former. A poor person - black or white, man or woman, gay or straight, etc. - does not have time to care about privilege theories, micro-aggressions, gender politics, etc. Those are important once the other needs are met. I don't discount them out of hand. I discount them as issues that no one who has ever faced true poverty would attempt to argue as being more important.
The New Deal and the Great Society spoke exactly to this hierarchy of needs. It began to address each and every level and recognized that without the lower needs being satisfied there was little to no hope of the higher ones being realized.
So my training, my professional experience, my personal experience have all taught me that this is true. Without jobs and job security, without food, clothing, and adequate housing, without health care (not fucking health insurance but actual health care), without social security & medicare for our old, without this basic economic security, civil rights as described today by social justice has no foundation upon which to build for we, the people. First economics, then civil rights. They are intertwined but must be done in an order that acknowledges what is real about life and living.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and the vast favoritism that is implicit even in your words. The primary civil rights sought by minority people involve economic issues and issues of equal access to opportunity, and that's the case no matter how much it upsets your straight white applecart.
LGBT people for example are subject to legal job discrimination in 29 States and there is no Federal protection, no recourse of any kind. So when you say that without job security " civil rights as described today by social justice has no foundation upon which to build for we, the people. First economics, then civil rights" one has to wonder what the fuck you are talking about. The civil right most ardently sought is the right to jobs and security in those jobs and work places. The civil right is an economic right.
When I read posts such as yours, I have to assume that you are just not aware of all that legal job discrimination. It seems like you want to plow forward getting more for people like yourself without even allowing others to level the current playing field at all.
Pass ENDA then come spew about how firing people for existing is just a stupid social issue and those who are fired do not face economic destruction.
Must be nice to be born to it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thanks for bringing this up.
this is how i see it too.
we are on an unlevel playing field and those addressing economic justice want to level in tilted while addressing the issue always leaving us in the oppressed group struggling that much harder to catch up
level the damn playing field and lets go from there.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for decades. If people like the OP actually gave a fuck about equality of any sort, they would have taken up those causes more strongly, instead they have always left them to the women and the LGBT people to deal with. Which we did, and in doing so we gained footing and power in the progressive movement which now upsets those who refused to assist in the first place.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)women carry dead fetus's to prevent abortion.
it is really fuckin easy for straight white (christian) men to tell us, that economics for all will address???
what? the dead fetus in a womans uterus? or that we are people too?
we are starting way way way behind on this right thing, duh.
* a couple mentions.... i took strongblackman's (christian). i like how he did it so i am adopting it too.
** same principle. what i have appreciated in this conversation with you, and also listening to strongblackman. you take gays issues. you know them. you discuss this. knowing women and blacks are right there with you.
strongblackman does the same with black
i do the same with women
always the understanding we are shoulder to shoulder.
what populist is losing out on. is they want to be shoulder to shoulder in front of us.
you, me, strongblackman would like to not only be shoulder to shoulder with each other, but at the very least..... shoulder to shoulder on that front line our straight white (christian) men are creating, in front of us, blocking our view..... with election 2016.
my point. i like you are consistently their advocating for gays. and strongblackman with blacks, knowing, we get it.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)not do it at all. Our voices together carry more weight, seabeyound. We may each have some different issues, of course we do. Yet the bottom line it is equality for all of us, if one of the groups has a win we will all feel it. As a woman, I want my right over my own body, I want it for every little girl of every color. I remain an ally to the LGBT community and the black community as well.
Bottom line social justice and economic justice must go hand in hand. One can not move forward without the other. I refuse to be told I am a "distraction". All of us, we are not "distractions. No white christian male is going to tell me that we are.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You think as a gay man that you are the only one oppressed. Wrong. You think you are the only one who was not born into privilege. Wrong again.
My father was black. My mother is white. I understand exactly what is going on. I actually know what poverty is. Have you ever experienced it? I mean real poverty where you wonder if you will have a home, food, medical care?
I addressed the need to start with physical and safety issues when dealing with those in actual poverty. Supporting civil rights so that a LGBT person is not fired due to their orientation is a part of the safety level. That is economic security. Marriage rights have little to do with 'love and belonging' when you are oppressed so recognizing that there is a safety and economic foundation to marriage rights again shows the wisdom of the Maslow's work even for today. Anyone can be in a relationship and experience love. But, if you can not legally make decisions for the person you love if they are dying in a hospital then no, your safety and security needs are not yet met.
Nothing I said invalidates your experiences or the need for civil rights.
Do you ever read what anyone really posts here?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what populist is advocating is wallstreet and corportation. yea. some of my favorite conversation as i am invested in the market and have worked in, managed, and owned business.
and now paying ollege for my kids. which you will find to be another in front issue, for populist.
will it fuckin help me? hell ya. and while dems work to meet the elected position. wallstreet and corporations, our states are telling me that if my fetus dies after 20 months, i can not get a medical procedure that will take the dead fetus out of my body.
and a supreme court justice telling me that i am not a person, per the 14th amendment.
in a post below you say those issues are important, but first we have to go after wallstreet, for people like me. that is well comfortable, financially and set for retirement. to make it that much easier. for me to not spend my retirement on my boys college. good stuff and needs to be done.
hey.... i want to talk about not being a part of the 14th amendment, and having to carry a dead fetus in my body.
ya think?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I said nothing of the kind. You start barking a sermon at me. You did not even address what I said to you, you just told me what I think and then corrected it.
You accuse others of not reading posts when your response to me had NOTHING to do with what I said. You put ugly words into my mouth, and you need to stop that right now. It is not your right to do that. Speak for yourself.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)To an outside observer, you are doing as much "barking" as TM99.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Anyone can be in a relationship and experience love? Well, that looks nice on a greeting card, but otherwise, doesn't address the point.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)element of Maslow's hierarchy.
TM99
(8,352 posts)if you are afraid that you will not be able to keep a job because of discrimination, if you are not able to eat tomorrow, having love and a relationship are not exactly high priorities at that moment in time.
Maslow recognized that those were higher level needs that could be explored and enjoyed when lower level needs were met.
So yes, I did address it. If you do not end discrimination based on orientation so that it impacts a person's physical safety or economic security, anything beyond that is a waste of time.
kcr
(15,315 posts)The privilege that you dismiss, which is why I have a hard time taking your posts seriously.
I could care less.
Privilege theory is wholly unnecessary to explaining the need for both economic and social populism. And Maslow's observations hold true.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Derp.
Dismiss away I shall.
TM99
(8,352 posts)which can be tested and has rigorous data to back it up is completely equal to a social theory that does not.
Derp indeed!
Response to kcr (Reply #157)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
TM99
(8,352 posts)What you fail to fathom is that poverty is very often caused by discrimination, privilege dynamics and the vast favoritism that is implicit even in your words.
The primary civil rights sought by minority people involve economic issues and issues of equal access to opportunity, and that's the case no matter how much it upsets your straight white applecart.
When I read posts such as yours, I have to assume that you are just not aware of all that legal job discrimination. It seems like you want to plow forward getting more for people like yourself without even allowing others to level the current playing field at all.
Must be nice to be born to it.
You did NOT read my post. You are so privileged yourself that you assume constantly with me that you can tell me what I think or what I have experienced. The moment any stranger tells me that they know I am 'privileged', then I know they are doing their own script and NOT actually even trying to interact with me.
Own your own ugly words. Speak for yourself. Stop telling your allies here that we don't understand, that we are homophobes, or that we are privileged when you know zero about us or are too stubborn to read what we do say about ourselves.
I did address everything that was not judgemental, assumptive bullshit in your reply to me. Maedhros got it, but I will quote it again as you do seem to be avoiding what was actually said over what you imagine was said.
I addressed the need to start with physical and safety issues when dealing with those in actual poverty. Supporting civil rights so that a LGBT person is not fired due to their orientation is a part of the safety level. That is economic security. Marriage rights have little to do with 'love and belonging' when you are oppressed so recognizing that there is a safety and economic foundation to marriage rights again shows the wisdom of the Maslow's work even for today. Anyone can be in a relationship and experience love. But, if you can not legally make decisions for the person you love if they are dying in a hospital then no, your safety and security needs are not yet met.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)You can't eliminate poverty for oppressed people without ending oppression. So long as there is oppression, there will be large numbers of oppressed people living in poverty. An attempt to eliminate poverty without eliminating oppression is really just an attempt to eliminate poverty for straight, white men. Oppression against other people will still cause them to have high levels of poverty, no matter what economic work is done.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I simply described what needs to be targeted first when it comes to oppression and that is physical needs and safety which includes economic safety as well as physical.
G_j
(40,366 posts)with economic injustice and civil rights.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But, it seems to me, the only time that comes up is when a Person of Color, a woman, a member of the LGBT community, or another member of a discrete, innate, disenfranchised group asserts their desire/need for recognition of their civil rights ... and some straight, white (Christian) male states, "we are all in this together, so let's start with ME."
Or, when some straight, white (Christian) male wants to have/start a discussion about how "we are all in this together, so let's start with ME."
It gets really tiresome.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Yet it's part of the propaganda...and is why I asked the question.
Number23
(24,544 posts)hand or what people are saying about it.
Which explains probably better than anything why you keep posting this OP over and over again complete with videos and quotes from a comedian that few feel is in any way relevant to this discussion.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Economic equality is a great aspiration. It is important. However, without real social equality, economic equality will always be a pipe dream because there will always be a "social" group who is excluded. Quite frankly, I feel some see social equality as an "individual" right and economic equality as a "societal" right, so it becomes the "rights of the many over the one", but that isn't reality. People see economic equality as "all boats rising with the tide", but fail to realize "all boats" aren't waterproofed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I would say reality has it just the opposite ... social equality is the societal right and economic equality is the individual right ... and that explains a lot to me in that it fits a pattern for those (generally) arguing the "economic justice" argument.
BTW, did you notice the subtle shift? The argument was once framed, "It's classism, stupid" ... now, it has shifted to the better sounding, "economic (in)justice."
The branding effort is right up there with "Americans for Prosperity" ... who doesn't want that?!?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and i agree it is a flip flop of societal rights.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i put up a simple definition of the two, social and economic justice. i have had nothing but this particular group attack without discussion. yet, willy puts up a thread, and all of a sudden, rah... respectfully discussed.
strong is the clearest. it is white men saying, start with me. excellent point. how it is seen as individual right as opposed to societal right. that is exactly it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)African-American males.
Their economic distress and racial discrimination and oppression were so closely tied as to be inextricable.
I do not know how discrimination affects wealthy African-Americans. I do know that economic discrimination and racial discrimination are so closely linked that it is hard to say which causes more pain to the very poorest African-Americans who face constantly the assumption that they are criminals when in fact that assumption is more often wrong than right and certainly always wrong when no crime is being committed.
Somehow, no matter the discrimination issue, the problems that are not linked to economic issues are easier to deal with, less centrally destructive to one's life.
If I as a woman am not invited to some event because I am a woman, I miss the event and sometimes that means missing the opportunity to connect with people I work with or people who hold my economic fate in their hands. But more often, I will be excluded because of my economic status and not because I am a woman.
I think that African-Americans in particular sometimes assume that they are excluded because of their color when in fact, they are being excluded because due to their color they are perceived as being poor and maybe worth less than a white person. The color sets off a false perception of poverty. That is not always the case, but it may be. On the other hand, for example, being an African-American male may be an advantage when it comes to being invited to a sports event. Being a woman will more likely get you excluded from that one. There is the false perception that African-American males are interested in or good at sports. Sometimes true. Sometimes not. Similarly, there is a perception that women are probably not interested in sports.
One of the behaviors that is common and that is used to sort of make a friend or get a social advantage is talking about sports. Guys do this all the time. What is this team or that team doing. In general, most women (and I realize it is not fair to generalize but the social norm is to generalize in this respect) will be excluded from a conversation about sports. So the boss goes up to your male co-worker regardless of race and has a cozy, friendly chat about sports. Meanwhile you, the woman are excluded.
That kind of discrimination can really cost you money. And that is the problem with it. I don't particularly want to be involved in discussions about sports, but I would like to have the same kind of relaxed conversation with my boss that the male who is perceived as a sports fan has.
So under many discrimination issues are issues of economic importance. Many discrimination issues are important only because they cost the one suffering from discrimination money.
Of course, my examples are petty. But I think they make my point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with them basing their lecture on what they experienced through a vicarious and random encounter with another Black person. {Sighhh}
I am well aware of the Black condition ... I live it everyday. I am well aware of life as an upper-middle class Black man ... that is my current station. Further, I am intimately aware of the condition of life as a poor Black man ... I have lived that, too. And, each step of the way, my race mattered to a greater or lesser degree ... but it mattered none the less.
Well, with that admission, perhaps you should listen to the PoC on this board. While few of us are wealthy (i.e., defined as 1%ers), several of us earn far above the median income (with a few of us earning in the top 10% and others approaching, or at, the top 5%), and we all are TELLING you the same story ... NO amount of money makes the daily indignities we suffer, any easier to take. Arguably, our wealth makes these indignities MORE difficult to accept BECAUSE we are not as focused on survival issues (other than having to remember to not protest too much when encountering law enforcement).
Again, citing to the above means that you are clearly NOT listening to what PoC on this board have been saying ... the phenomena that you mention is NOT limited to "the very poorest African-Americans."
Really? ... So women being excluded from the golf outing and/or the corporate junkets are excluded because of economic status, and not because they are women? Not because women "can't play from the Blues" or, wouldn't "enjoy the enjoy the entertainment (read: the strip club) ... both places where the rapport is developed that closes the deal.
That kind of gives lie to your "women are excluded because of economic status" line ... doesn't it? And, honestly, I believe at some level you understand; but, are unwilling to accept what you know.
With all due respect, I suggest you are a victim of blaming yourself for other's bad acts ... if you just worked hard enough to earn the big bucks, you would get invited to the social affairs that get you the big bucks. That is sad, sad self-delusion.
You do realize that, with that statement, you have made the case, that I have been making from the start ... Social injustice IS inextricable from Economic injustice; but, only for those suffering Social injustice ... and NO amount of money will change that!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have a plan, most of which I am acting on ... it includes a mix of community and political activism and youth mentorship and role modeling.
I see/sense your frustration, and can appreciate it ... you just want to be an ally. But, understand, the best I can do, that you will see is for me to hold up a mirror to would be "allies", in an attempt to show them that telling me about my life/condition, while dismissing/discounting what I say about my life/condition, is a failed strategy for being/becoming an accepted ally.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)This is a must read.
Sadly, it will go unnoticed and unanswered.
The agenda driven nonsense on display at the bottom of this thread provides a clue to the OP's original question. Apparently the answer is a resounding NO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So, there is that
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and that's the point!
So, why, in your admitted ignorance (meaning, so as not to offend: not knowing) do you insist on, trying to tell those that have more than an "idea", the what is or is not, about our life's experience/condition?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)can be done about it.
What do you really want that white people can do for you?
Do you want to be left alone?
If so, why are you here?
Do you want some sort of change?
Then what is the change that you want and can those of us who are not African-American play any role in achieving that change?
Or is this just about venting frustration? If so, I will just listen or read and not respond. Do you want to interact with white people who do not understand and cannot understand you problems or not?
I am trying to understand what you want. I know what my African-American neighbors and friends want. They just want to be treated like everybody else. Is that what you want?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Indicates that you either are unable or unwilling to understand my point ... or, you just aren't reading what I am writing.
So I will just stop with you.
Peace
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Best examples are being shut out of the old boys club at work. Try making 3/4 the pay and having to work twice as hard. Amazing that your focus is completely about money. Just shows you do, as suspected, have no real clue. I don't believe you should not know better, but I guess it's the only portion of it you can related to at all.
You can't imagine someone regulating your penis or being shot by the police for looking at them funny- so you completely ignore those things.
So, for starters try to stop minimizing the issues and guessing they are as 'petty' as your own. Learn to be an ally and listen instead.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)gays cause hurricanes!" at the national-party level--but if there was indeed a critical opposition between the two types of issues in today's party, we'd expect the likes of Emanuel and Harold Ford to be super-duper vocal on social issues, no?
case in point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026669162
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It seems to me this question would become relevant in case of a proposed bill that would make things better in one category but worse in the other. Offhand I can't remember ever seeing such a bill.
Maybe my friend Alan's main reason for voting for Obama was that he thought a Romney Presidency would exacerbate income inequality. Maybe my friend Betty's main reason was that she thought Obama would do more for civil rights (in various respects). So what? They both voted for Obama. I don't see any point to arguing about their reasoning.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)discussed.
Social justice is defined in this article according to
The Social Work Dictionary
(Barker, 2003: 404–5) as: ‘An ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same basic rights, protection, opportunities,obligations, and social benefits A key social work value, social justice entails advocacy to confront discrimination, oppression,and institutional inequities.
’Economic justice is a narrower concept, referring to the standard of living that ideally should be equitable. All persons ought to have opportunities for meaningful work and an income that provides them with adequate food, shelter and a level of living that contri-butes to good health. Whereas social and economic justice is a general term that relates to society in general, human rights is a term that, from the point of view of the people, refers to specific universal standards relevant to freedom and well-being, personal and collective right
http://www.academia.edu/485556/Social_and_economic_justice_human_rights_and_peace
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)It's not a zero sum thing. Both are important. Both affect people's lives.
We need to discuss both as essential things and compare how they are handled by candidates and parties.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Divide the electorate in a manner which is remarkably beneficial to those who own the parties.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)him why he is doing that. He does not bother to explain what his objectives are in posting the same freaking baiting, divisive crap over and over, even when repeatedly asked.
Unless he's working for 'the parties' this is not their fault.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)But a nice attempt.
Whereas income inequality and civil rights transect, here is the bottom line dilemma for you. I believe civil rights must be addressed and obtained before true income equality can exist. People such as yourself believe that civil rights are obtained along with income equality. To me that is more a statement of white male privledge, to you it is common sense.
Now, I deliberately used the term white male privilege rather than a soft sell, because there are many here at DU who deny such a thing exists. Which is another problem when discussing the topics in this way. It like denying racism is an institutionalized and culturally integrated --disease-- and/or sexism is a standard, an internalized norm.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)(I am not really surprised as you are quite intelligent and understand this issue very well, but still...DAYUM!)
I see this much the same way you do. Without a level playing field of civil rights equality, economic equality isn't possible, because it is actually a component of civil rights justice, not the other way around. When people only (or heavily favor) attacking economic injustice, as opposed to civil rights injustice, it is akin to attacking a symptom of a disease, instead of the entire disease!
"Now, I deliberately used the term white male privilege rather than a soft sell, because there are many here at DU who deny such a thing exists. Which is another problem when discussing the topics in this way. It like denying racism is an institutionalized and culturally integrated --disease-- and/or sexism is a standard, an internalized norm."
YUP! For my experience here, it seems many feel we are demanding that individuals change, as if that were possible. No, we are looking to change the SYSTEMS which allow these civil rights violations to fester and infect. They don't seem to understand, like them, we are looking for systematic changes, which will allow for human dignity and equality.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Because as you pointing out in your thoughtful OP, heterosexism is also a system of oppression
TBF
(32,047 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)TBF
(32,047 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I can't believe you fucking even said that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)correct this utterly bizarre white washing of MLK and his legacy.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I think I'm gonna be ill. My vocabulary leaves me. I can't imagine how you must feel seeing this.
Number23
(24,544 posts)We've done so over and over again. To no avail.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/118712086
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024362968
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026460370#post5
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Lands Smack Into the area of unapologetic passive/aggressive racism.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But it remains to be seen if it is willful (which would move it into the unapologetic passive/aggressive racism area) or not.
(Yes ... I am, ever, the optimist.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)betsuni
(25,468 posts)Like Sisyface and his rock.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why does this bother you?
It's not like that poster is saying that what Dr. King talked about before 1967 didn't matter or didn't take courage.
It's the reason most MLK Birthday events are passionless and sterile...the people who've coopted those events refuse to mention
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Who the Fuck co-opted what?
TBF
(32,047 posts)wedge issues and focus on class. I think it's virtually impossible to do that but I do understand that the only thing the 1%'ers really care about is money. There are bigots that are certainly wealthy, but that is not why they oppress people. They oppress people because they like keeping their power and money. Do we have to fight on all fronts? I believe we do. But do they care if we're in the street protesting? I don't think they do unless it threatens commerce significantly.
Edited to add - not trying to downplay all of the other racism/sexism out there that comes from various classes. Of course both issues have to be addressed. Was just commenting (perhaps inartfully) that they don't see us as a threat unless it affects commerce.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)those who are 'not like us' than toward those who 'are like us' throughout history and throughout the present. It's not just economic. It's far more violent, far more hurtful and far more pervasive than just economic.
TBF
(32,047 posts)is the anti-police protests. The 1% may be focused on their bank statements, but their protectors are wreaking all sorts of havoc. Watching all of this escalate makes me wonder whether this will be the thing that will actually spark a revolution as opposed to simply widespread loss of jobs or the like. So, as others have said it's very much intertwined and we have to fight against all oppression - not just economic or civil rights on their own.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)2016 election.
that is all we are fucking asking for. and see the challenge?
TBF
(32,047 posts)and as I said I may be very surprised in that the civil rights protests may be the spark that gets more people in the street than we ever expected.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to make some start the race at the bottom of the hill, and others on the top, and say go.....
is hardly right.
then again, it will be social on that bottom of the hill having to climb to the top first, before beginning the race, with economic pretending it is a level playing field.
kinda like even trying to shoulder some room at the starting line. like i said. we HUMBLY ask, can we participate also, in the 2016 election?
everyone keeps saying both, yet ignoring the unlevel field and not letting us participate.
really what is being said is,
we will take care of economic, and THAT will fix the problem.
regardless how many obvious posts show why that will NOT fix the problem. and in the meantime, it really is not both. it is merely ..... economic.
TBF
(32,047 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a critical look at those telling your to "ignore the wedge issues", is in order. Then, perhaps you will see why?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we have been saying repeatedly, in many threads where we are called out, and this thread specifically
i am NOT a fuckin wedge issue.
fuck. that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)strongly suspected that they could count on the straight, white (Christian) male to continue to fight the racial status quo fight?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Prism
(5,815 posts)I'll use it as an example, because it's my own lived experience.
The LGBT question isn't really one of economics. It was a change in social perception, hard fought, with a lack of economic question. Yes, in many places, you had a kind of LGBT underclass of people who were severed from economic opportunity and the social stability of loving families and large networks of friends.
However, the movement itself has largely been pushed and advocated for by a monied underclass (if such a thing can exist). If you look at most of the major LGBT organizations that fought this battle, you'll see middle to upper middle class LGBTers (largely white and male, although that is changing). And you'll notice that money is a fantastic insulator for many of these people (see the recent Cruz fiasco with the gay hoteliers). When you look at where the LGBT youth movement glommed onto social media, you will largely see middle class kids with computers, technology, good schools, and a platform.
No, LGBT rights are largely a social movement. There are, of course, economic consequences to this. A lack of financial security among couples, the specter of employment and housing discrimination. But simply providing more economic opportunity doesn't wash those things away. We could return to a time with more equitable division of income, and that discrimination would still render it inaccessible.
A nice paycheck is fine, but it helps not at all when no one will hire you or promote you with a complete lack of recourse. Having health insurance works, unless you partner isn't covered.
There are issues there that economic progressivism just won't patch.
Now, I don't understand why this division of economic/social movement cropped up on DU. Social justice, IMO, includes economic justice. They're two thoughts we should always strive to maintain simultaneously. The lack of economic justice often derives from a lack of social justice. The inner city African American experience is more than testament to that.
Economic access will help. A more equitable division of capital and profit will help. But it isn't synonymous with a fix. Equal access can only come when equality is the law of the land in letter and in practice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Take a glance at whom is RAISING the issue; then, projecting the non-straight, non-white, non-christian, non-male members' response, as divisive ... and I suspect you can figure out WHY they are raising the issue.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Democrats who push conservative economic policies (e.g. Hillary Clinton).
Those who criticize said conservative economic policies are sometimes accused of not caring about social justice, because such criticism is seen as helping a potential Republican opponent who is wrong on both counts. The implication is that good Democrats must support conservative economic policies when they come from socially-liberal politicians. Many balk at this.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)here's a test of your theory:
Post to those (original, not responsive) threads, articles, blog pieces saying "We need to focus on social issues, not economic issues."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Interestingly, those who want to limit others' civil rights are often the same people who support fiscally conservative policies.
And one of the reasons they don't want policies that help people having a hard time or just society as a whole is that the fiscally conservative tend to be racist and opposed to things like gay marriage, women's rights, etc. because they think that social programs and social progress will take something away from them.
Nonsense. But those who are fiscally conservative are rarely really very liberal on civil rights -- unless it is a specific right like gay marriage or abortion or no anti-drug laws and they personally stand to gain from it.
So fiscal conservatism and selective or negative views on civil rights appear together very often.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)of others. Calling civil rights struggles "wedge issues, divisive, identity politics, etc." is itself so enormously privileged it would be hilarious if it wasn't so common. Watch for people doing that and tell them to stop it. That would be an enormous help.
(Nice touch from the white, straight guy who says he doesn't identify with those labels. Must be nice. I wish I could just declare myself a straight, white guy and have my pay jump up .23 cents more. Unfortunately, I don't get to do that, since I'm a woman.)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The only people who argue the two are separated are well off financially. The idea that poor minorities aren't hit so hard they fall through the floor is some kind of strange idea I only hear in certain circles. I want people of color to be so strong they can stand up and demand their rights, not just hanging on by their fingernails. This circular firing squad shit is just more distraction.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)without civil rights ... and why would non-PoC want them/us to have to?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)while all the rest of us get ours. then good luck with it.
i mean, those trying to explain to us, how economics is the way to go, are really doing a shitty job of explaining. it is not looking good for all the rest of us.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)If you could tell me what your plan looks like, maybe I could. I think we agree on some levels.
But I believe people of color aren't able to stand up for their rights because they are held down. Fighting for equality, jobs, education and freedom from oppression can only help. And with it comes the power to effect legislation in this world of money = power.
"Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession"
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't think there's a 'versus', or anything useful to be gained in saying 'right x' is more important than 'right y'. Either works to divide those who champion rights, which helps people who don't want either. Be for both, work for both, elect politicians who work for both.
Omnith
(171 posts)I think there is a fundamental difference between the two. Civil rights are well rights that you are guaranteed. And as for income inequality, well income is not a right. They are not even close to being in the same ball park.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)They join together to right the wrongs...
Otherwise you get an attitude of... "Why should I support you, when you won't support me?"
Old as hell.
Omnith
(171 posts)I think it is good people come together and try and make things right. Not everyone agrees what right is. I guess that's the essence of compromise and government. It's not perfect but neither is humanity and I suppose that's why government is necessary.
JEB
(4,748 posts)so forgive me if I repeat. Poor people are treated like shit. Black people are treated like shit, And poor black people are really in for it. We all have a common enemy that will use any excuse to keep us all down.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Today's thread title:
"Can We Have A Toughtful/Respectful Discussion Of Civil Rights Versus Income Inequality ???"
And the Mar 28th version:
"Can We Have An Open Honest Discussion About Progressives, Civil Rights, And Income Inequality ???"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026430750
That one had 131 replies.
Same shit, different day, triple question marks and all. It is the sort of thing that makes you wonder why a person would do such a thing. It's very disingenuous in just about every way.
betsuni
(25,468 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)are when posting such material and the OP simply refuses to answer those questions. At this point, he's been refusing to respond to questions about is objective in posting this same OP in various forms for about 6 weeks.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)Yes, there are all sorts of systemic things meant to divide the masses. Unfortunately, one all-too common (and thoroughly misguided) response to that reality has been for progressives to respond to discussions of racism with variations on a theme of "it's not race it's class," or "Civil Rights Versus Income Inequality" or "race is just a tactic used to divide and conquer."
If it is true that race is just something the ruling class uses to divide us (and, hey, I'm on board with that), then this is a revolting way to respond. Because all it does is reaffirm the divide. It says: your problems are not my problem, but my problem--that's our problem. I see it as a similar mistake to the "I don't see race" pretense that Colbert often satirizes.
If race is just something the ruling class uses to divide the rest of us, the better strategy is not to set aside or marginalize civil rights struggles, but rather to embrace those struggles, because the closer we get to equality the less effective those divisive tactics will be.
Number23
(24,544 posts)That's an incredibly well said and accurate way to sum all of the "race is just a tool the 1% use to divide" idiocy up.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)As if there is a competition between them.
Definitely can't have one without the other.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I think both social and economic issues are vitally relevant, and that we can't have true economic justice until we have elminiated oppression. Otherwise, oppressed groups can't be a part of the economic justice because their oppression is what causes much of their economic status.
Also, I am not a third-wayer, nor am I a "Hillary Shill." So far, I'm most likely to vote for Sanders.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Again,
gollygee
(22,336 posts)with "add disingenuous to the list" unless you were talking about me.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)which was a response to me.
For the third and last time, .
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts) ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Wow
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I'm not in GD a whole lot, so I am horrified, I knew it was bad, but my God.
Romulox
(25,960 posts) ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Except, who are you? Wait..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)See e.g., President Obama.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)has it occurred to you that for PoC (and other marginalized groups) it's about the "ism", not the politics ... because politics won't solve the problem.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
He's a real asshole.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)economic rights and civil rights are linked; they can't, and shouldn't, be separated.
And I think that "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative," is a label for neo-liberals, who are actually moderately "liberal" socially, at least relative to Republicans, and heavily liberal economically.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)You might have the cash but you can't cash in your face.
We can winnow away at income inequality and make life a little better for everyone but economic justice will not be achieved so long as civil and human rights are not fully addressed.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Here's the one from March 28th-
"Can We Have An Open Honest Discussion About Progressives, Civil Rights, And Income Inequality ???"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026430750
Same material, down to the same abuses of poor old George Carlin. It's just strange and repetitious and reeks of message manufacture. I prefer local, organic language to Factory Framed Language.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)What moneyed interests do you have, that precludes the poor in liberation?
BTW - It starts a useful and NECESSARY discussion.
Ant that's what this is... a discussion board.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)questioning of your motives in repetitive posting of virtually identical OPs as being 'against coming together'. That's cheap, evasive, bullying. You got asked a simple question.
Most DU'ers don't do reruns. You do. I asked you why. You are not the owner and operator of unity and togetherness. You are a guy who keeps doing reruns. And that's odd. Also odd is to make bullshit insinuations about my motives in fighting for rights equal to yours. You come on with the arch McCarthy, claiming that I want to talk about civil rights not money because I really care about money? It's another rerun, as that sort of attack on gay people is common as red dirt in Oklahoma.
betsuni
(25,468 posts)Why are you against that?
kcr
(15,315 posts)That telling people they need to put their needs and interests aside will create a feeling of unity for everyone. You honestly think that will work?
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)have always been oppressed in this country, and much (though not all) of that oppression has been economic.
Nowadays, it seems like the non-oppressed (since people don't like being called "privileged", it offends their delicate sensibilities ) corollaries to those respective groups - men, whites, native-born Americans, the "middle class", heterosexuals and anyone else who has otherwise benefited from a long history of this inequality and injustice - it seems like members of the non-oppressed groups are finally "paying attention." The reason? Because issues like economic inequality, unemployment, etc., are starting to affect them. To put it bluntly: They see their own status, their own power and privilege being eroded, and they are understandably scared shitless.
One way that a dominant group can assert its power over oppressed groups is by claiming that the concerns of the oppressed groups don't matter, or that they don't matter as much as the concerns of the dominant group - which the dominant group just assumes are universal priorities. That's privilege. That's what I have seen, and many others on this board (or who were on this board...) can back me up on that.
You want an honest discussion? How about some intellectual honesty from your "comrades", from those who claim re: the challenges and struggles that face us today, "It's not race, it's not gender, it's not sexuality, it's not any of those things...it's economic class!" Because from what I can tell, many of the loudest drumbeats for the "class war" to be our focus, our priority, come from the same people who have minimized, dismissed, bullied, and otherwise been tone-deaf on the "identity politics" issues.
Women, people of color, the LGBT community, poor immigrants, etc. have always been fighting against ALL forms of injustice-economic, social, racial-many of them, on this board, since before DU was started, or even since before I was born (since I am a fairly young adult, after all...), or since before the Reagan administration....you get the idea. Yet the dominant, privileged culture didn't merely neglect those organizers and activists, it actively opposed them. That history needs to be acknowledged and accounted for, before we can do anything else.
Unfortunately, judging by some (but not all, mercifully) of the responses in this thread, the tone-deafness and casual dismissals and willful ignorance of the everyday lives, experiences, and struggles of those whose political priorities are considered "divisive identity politics" are still issues. So, to answer your original question: No, we can't. At least, not yet.
