White progressives’ racial myopia: Why their colorblindness fails minorities — and the left

[BainsBane]

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong crusader for economic justice now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has serious civil rights movement cred: he attended the historic 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a quarter million people changed the country’s course when it came to race. It would be wrong and unfair to accuse him of indifference to issues of racial equality.

But in the wake of his picture-postcard campaign launch, from the shores of Vermont’s lovely Lake Champlain, Sanders has faced questions about whether his approach to race has kept up with the times. Writing in Vox, Dara Lind suggested that Sanders’ passion for economic justice issues has left him less attentive to the rising movement for racial justice, which holds that racial disadvantage won’t be eradicated only by efforts at economic equality. Covering the Sanders launch appreciatively on MSNBC, Chris Hayes likewise noted the lack of attention to issues of police violence and mass incarceration in the Vermont senator’s stirring kick-off speech.

These are the same questions I raised last month after watching Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio hail the new progressive movement to combat income inequality at two Washington D.C. events. Both pointed to rising popular movements to demand economic justice, most notably the “Fight for $15” campaign. Neither mentioned the most vital and arguably most important movement of all, the “Black Lives Matter” crusade. (Which is odd, since “Fight for $15? leaders have explicitly endorsed their sister movement.) And the agendas they endorsed that day made only minimal mention, if they mentioned it at all, of the role that mass incarceration and police abuse plays in worsening the plight of the African American poor.

. . .
Dara Lind points to Sanders’ socialist analysis as a reason he’s reluctant to focus on issues of race: he thinks they’re mainly issues of class. She samples colleague Andrew Prokop’s Sanders profile, which found:

Even as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, influenced by the hours he spent in the library stacks reading famous philosophers, (Sanders) became frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle. They couldn’t see that everything they protested, he later said, was rooted in “an economic system in which the rich controls, to a large degree, the political and economic life of the country.”

Increasingly, though, black and other scholars are showing us that racial disadvantage won’t be undone without paying attention to, and talking about, race. The experience of black poverty is different in some ways than that of white poverty; it’s more likely to be intergenerational, for one thing, as well as being the result of discriminatory public and private policies.

At the Progressive Agenda event last month, I heard activists complain that they’d been told the same thing: the agenda will disproportionately benefit black people, because they’re disproportionately disadvantaged, even if it didn’t specifically address the core issue of criminal justice reform. (De Blasio later promised the agenda would include that issue.) But six years of hearing that from a black president has exhausted people’s patience, and white progressives aren’t going to be able to get away with it anymore.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/white_progressives_racial_myopia_why_their_colorblindness_fails_minorities_and_the_left/

[pnwmom]

1. Where is this from? The link's not working. n/t

[BainsBane]

2. Sorry, I fixed it

It's from Salon. http://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/white_progressives_racial_myopia_why_their_colorblindness_fails_minorities_and_the_left/

[pnwmom]

4. Thanks! She's a good writer. n/t

[sheshe2]

5. Brava Bains!

At the Progressive Agenda event last month, I heard activists complain that they’d been told the same thing: the agenda will disproportionately benefit black people, because they’re disproportionately disadvantaged, even if it didn’t specifically address the core issue of criminal justice reform. (De Blasio later promised the agenda would include that issue.) But six years of hearing that from a black president has exhausted people’s patience, and white progressives aren’t going to be able to get away with it anymore.

[pnwmom]

6. What Sanders doesn't seem to understand is that racists would rather not get their fair share

if it means black people will ALSO get their fair share. It's so pathetic, but it's true.

[betterdemsonly]

13. So the agenda should be set by racists then?

Please explain to me what Hillary has ever done for civil rights in the US. If I recall correctly it was under her husbands administration the Democrats started gettng scared of affirmative action and programs that specifically benefited blacks. It was also under Bill that Blacks men started getting locked up in huge numbers. Clinton also promoted broken windows, and the drug war.

[BainsBane]

14. You don't understand correctly

Affirmative Action was struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Romulox]

42. That is factually incorrect.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

[BainsBane]

45. There have been a whole series of SCOTUS decisions

chipping away at Affirmative Action, starting with Bakke (1978): http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/04/22/affirmative-action-rulings-a-timeline/

I work for a public institution and we are prohibited by law from considering race as a factor in hiring decisions.

[Romulox]

46. You were wrong. Quit digging. That is the US Dep't of Labor's current website. nt

[BainsBane]

47. Look at what its description of Affirmative Action is

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think you even read it.

For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company’s written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually.

It simply means they can't discriminate and should make some effort to attract a broad applicant pool. It isn't the original meaning of hiring more women and minorities to redress pass grievances. SCOTUS has made that illegal.

Quit digging? How about you start reading
You point black refused to read Scotus decisions. Why do you insist on ignoring the progression of laws prohiting racial preferences in hiring and admittance? Why do you insist on ignoring facts?
? Those are SCOTUS decisions. Just because you found something called Affirmative Action doesn't mean it provides for addressing past injustices by hiring more people of color.

Where have you been the last 30 years that you think Affirmative Action is alive and well in America? I didn't think anyone outside the right bought into that BS. Unfucking real.

[pnwmom]

15. Hillary has always been more liberal than her husband. Please do not define her by him. n/t

[betterdemsonly]

17. She had an opportunity to prove that in the Senate.

What did she do to correct these problems with his policies. Any attempts to reduce the number of blacks incarcerated in the United States? Any attempts to emeliorate the foreclosure crisis that hit the black community harder than other communities? Any attempt to stop the implementation of broken windows laws, or reduce sentences for non-violent offenders?

[pnwmom]

18. Thanks. When she was in the Senate she had one of the most progressive records there.

www.ontheissues.org

[betterdemsonly]

20. Well if we're going to move the goal post to general progressivism, from policies that help blacks

Bernie kicks butt there too. He is far more progressive than she is.

[pnwmom]

21. She gets an 85 from me, he gets a 90. Neither is perfect and both are far better

than any of the Rethugs, who are clumped down in the teens and twenties.

[William769]

7. Kick & recommended.

[ibegurpard]

8. Ah yes...

Gotta love the authentic POC perspective of Joan Walsh...

[m-lekktor]

9. we must be running out of anti Bernie material. we are doing re-runs!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026763646

[BainsBane]

10. Missed that

I think characterizing this as anti-Bernie material is unfortunate and shows a very limited understanding of the piece and the issue it outlines.

Say that's a Sanders supporter posting "anti-Bernie material." How exactly does that work?

[betterdemsonly]

11. Hillary doesn't have a record of focusing on either economic or racial justice

which the opposite of Bernie. This is just a really pathetic strawman on the party of Joan Walsh.

[BainsBane]

12. It's not a strawman

It's in response to conversations she's had with activists of color in the party. I don't think you know what the term strawman actually means.

[betterdemsonly]

16. So a conversation is more important than actual record huh?

Many of her policies have harmed African Americans. Her husband was a get tough on crime guy. It was under his administration the democrats started pushing "broken windows" and 3 strikes you're out." Clinton never complained about the Confederate flag as the wife of Blue Dog governor of a Southern state. Now all the sudden she does. The foreclosure crisis disproportionatly harmed African Americans. Her husband contributed to that through deregulation of the banking industry, and Obama her mentor, did nothing to relieve it. Blacks are poorer today as a result of it. If New Democrats are so in tune relative to Bernie how come it isn't a priority with one in office?

This is running in front of a parade, after it already started.

[Betty Karlson]

19. I'm enclined to agree with you.

I'm sick of the cynical efforts to use race as a wedge issue in the upcoming primaries - "you can't trust that man or woman: (s)he sees you as part of the whole community".

It doesn't even make sense to claim this. Not with voting records at hand.

[BainsBane]

25. We don't elect a president to vote in congress

Their priorities become their agenda. What they voted on doesn't tell us what they will do. That is made clear by the issues they emphasize during the campaign. You like Sanders priorities. The election will tell whether people of color feel the same way. Current polling suggests otherwise.

Now, I don't know if you didn't read the article. didn't understand its point, or you simply don't care about the issue. Either way, your comment reflects the very problem the author discusses. Everyone's lives and concerns are not the same. The notion that what is good for you should be good for everyone is one that refuses to address endemic problems of racism and gender inequality. It assumes your own experience is universal, when it is not.

The only people arguing that race is a wedge issue are people who want to avoid it's presence in the campaign. or those who insist that it is more important to court the Republican white male voter than speak to key Democratic constituencies. African Americans are central to the Democratic Party because they more than any other demographic vote reliability Democratic. Their concerns matter, and they have a right to demand they be addressed.

That entire meme about divisiveness in references to discussions of the concerns of the subaltern, who in fact comprise the majority of the population, comes straight from the GOP. It's a conservative view that assumes anyone but the minority, white men, are "special interests (a RW trope we've lately seen used on this site). There are already great divisions in American society, and the approach you suggest serves only to worsen them by insisting your experience and concerns are universal while those of others "divisive." It's a rhetorical strategy that is politically successful for Republicans but cannot work for Democrats, who depend on the votes of people of color and women.

[Betty Karlson]

29. You are twisting words again. I wish you would stop that.

When bigotry of any kind flares up in the face of increased economic volatility and income disparity, it is in everyone's interest to decrease those two issues.

Trying to derail those efforts by claiming that a candidate is insensitive for seeing the big picture is disingenuous.

And by the way: even white men can belong to a minority. The colour of my skin doesn't determine my sexual orientation, you see?

----

I would, however, like to agree with you about constituencies: "Their concerns matter, and they have a right to demand they be addressed."

You are absolutely right there. (I remember how angry I was when Obama went tone-deaf on January 20th, 2009. And several times after.) The issue of race should not be avoided in the primary. But rather, like gay marriage, it should be a moot point, one where all candidates can only express agreement. I think it is fair to say that the entire Democratic Party is aware of the bigotry still experienced by African-Americans and Latinos. We all agree that specific measures are needed to alleviate the stress of those two communities and discourage discrimination against them.

But given that we agree on this matter, why are people claiming that we don't? These claims make as much sense as claims that Mrs. Clinton is still a homophobe. She may have taken her merry time to "evolve" on the issue, but the important thing is that she did. All three Democratic candidates agree on marriage equality, all three agree on targeting minority discrimination. Look at the voting records. These are moot points in the primary, and trying to make issues of them is a wedge effort. Tell me how I see this wrong?

Yes, I would like to hear more from Mr. Sanders about the stress of racial minorities. I expect he is well aware of it. But unless he invites the president of the CCC to speak at one of his rallies, accusing him of racial myopia is over the top.

Allow candidates to agree with you, and lower the accusatory tone.

[BainsBane]

50. The points are clearly laid out in the article

It doesn't interest you. If you did, you would make an effort to understand the basic concerns.

It isn't the "big picture." It's part of the picture. It doesn't pay attention to other parts. Clearly it's the part that you care about, so that's what matters. If you believed the concerns of voters of color matter, why would you refer to this entire issue as a distraction? The rights and concerns of the subaltern are wedge issues; yours are the big picture. I find that entirely offensive and exclusionary. That is what my accusatory tone is about.

Additionally, the class concerns I see are entirely for the middle and upper-middle class. I have been told my own experience growing up poor and being preyed on by Johns as a child was irrelevant and "imaginary." I have been told a man's right to purchase flesh trumps the right of poor people in the communities where prostitution flourishes and the rights of women not to be forced into slavery. I have also been told that funding food stamps is an adequate response to poverty. The entire discourse of i vs. 99 percent belies the real class differences that make up this society. My childhood had no more in common with the upper 20 percent with household incomes of $100k than it did with the 1 percent. So I don't see much attention to a big picture, even when it comes to class alone. I instead see a politics of entitlement where a few middle class white people insist what they want is good for everyone. I don't agree.

Your entire argument about race (or gender, for those who make it, and many do) as a wedge issues is a conservative one. It is not a wedge. It is an experience in America of facing daily discrimination that class alone does not count for. No matter how many times you all are told that, you make clear you simply do not care. I understand you care about your own interests. There is no reason you shouldn't, but don't be surprised when the majority of the population you dismiss as wedge issues don't go along.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. OMG! ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

[BainsBane]

22. Why do you keep describing Hillary Clinton as an appendage of Bill?

None of that has anything to do with Hillary Clinton. Women exist as independent human beings. Marrying someone doesn't subsume them to their husband's identity. I'm sorry you can't understand that, but that only highlights how little of the opposition to Hillary Clinton has anything to do with her positions on issues.

Besides, there is an issue in this article that goes far beyond Clinton. This says more about white progressives generally. It is the very argument that people on this site repeat repeatedly, directly to posters of color. They, you, nor I decides who best speaks to the concerns of people of color. That is determined through their votes.

As it stands now, Sanders isn't polling well with people of color or women. There is a reason for it. And whatever nonsense you dredge up about Bill Clinton is entirely irrelevant to the issue because he is not running for president.

[betterdemsonly]

23. Yes, she had an independent poltical career in the Senate

and no one can cite her priortization of any issue important to "Black Lives Matter!" I pointed this out up thread. All anyone can point to is a somewhat progressive record in general, and if that is good for blacks than Bernies even more progressive record is better.

[Cha]

24. Increasingly, though, black and other scholars are showing us that racial disadvantage won’t be

undone without paying attention to, and talking about, race."

Precisely.. thank you, BB~

[dreamnightwind]

26. Ironic

"But six years of hearing that from a black president has exhausted people’s patience, and white progressives aren’t going to be able to get away with it anymore."

Most Bernie supporters I know don't consider Obama to be a progressive at all, and personally I don't think he did much more than lip service for african americans, though I'm sure they were happy to finally have a black president.

Seem to me he speaks well about their issues, yet does little to help them. Pretty much what I would expect from Hillary, but Bernie will speak less about their issues and do more to help them. YMMV of course.

[BainsBane]

27. What is interesting about that

Is that the policies Sanders laid out in his recent speech, at least that were posted here on DU (infrastructure, jobs programs), are identical to the not-progressive Obama. In fact, they are pretty much in keeping with mainstream Democratic proposals. Except there are some issues like gun control where he is on the conservative side.

[dreamnightwind]

28. LOL

Sorry, there is a world of difference between Obama and Sanders. To name a couple off the top of my head, Sanders wants to break up the banks, he is absolutely against the TPP, he wants a financial transaction tax, he is fighting to remove the cap from social security taxes, he wants corporations out of the health insurance business, it goes on and on, and Sanders has a long and consistent track recordd of actually fighting for what he believes in, not just taking on positions for political campaigns.

Using Joan Walsh to trash white progressive racial positions based on Obama's lack of progress for black america (Obama is neither white nor progressive) is one of the more amusing things I've read in awhile.

[BainsBane]

34. Clearly you didn't read the article

Or even the quotes. She isn't talking about racial positions. She's talking about the argument that dealing with class inequality and economic problems is enough. A number of black activists have said no it isn't. That doesn't interest you, not even enough to follow the argument.


I disagree with Walsh on one main factor. There is nothing in the positions she outlines that are even remotely progressive. It is a conservative position that refuses to consider anything but the concerns of the white middle class, the same constituencies the GOP appeals to.

As for what Sanders wants, I could write a list of things I'd wish for too, and they'd be far to the left of Sanders. However, what I, Sanders, or anyone else might wish for means nothing if it can't be implemented, as his legislative record doesn't show a record of success on any of those areas.

[dreamnightwind]

35. Actually it is Joan Walsh that doesn't interest me

She is a Hillary partisan, and I have long considered her to be intellectually dishonest, the way most political operatives are. I realize she presents as a columnist, not really the story with her though, she is more operative than columnist, and I agree she is not very progressive.

I'm seeing the class / economic issue not enough meme all over the place all of a sudden ever since Bernie started to get some traction. I would think finally having a sincere and fierce advocate on the class and economic side would be welcome. Nobody ever said it would fix everything, seems like an excellent place to start though.

Can you point me to specific policies such people are looking for that Bernie is not onboard with? Or do they just want more frank talk about race? Seems like they got a lot of that from Obama, but not much else, including little progress on violent police oppresion of people of color. I do think Bernie would stand up against police violence, he is willing to go against the power structure, which is what it takes.

As to your statement of Bernie not having much of a record of legislative success, first I don't agree with it, second I don't think getting legislation passed is the only objective, it matters whether it is good legislation or not, and you can make a lot of progress by fighting for the right things, educating the public, preparing the ground for coattail elections and future progress if you stand up for the interests of people who need standing up for, as opposed to standing up for the interests of the wealthy people and corporations who financed your campaign.

[ismnotwasm]

41. Operative?

In what way?

[dreamnightwind]

55. Sorry to you and BB that part of my post was not accurate

I went and googled what she's been up to lately to have a better understanding, and it was a little different than I had thought. I turned off to her a few years ago so my opinion of her was not well informed. I am still not a fan, have heard too many ridiculous arguments from her over the years, but she does appear to be grappling at least somewhat honestly with some of the same issues we are all looking at, such as what kind of forces are responsible for the sad and still declining state of this nation.

I had the impression she was an operative for Hillary, similar to how Howard Dean is now in her camp, but after reading a few of her pieces and a synopsis of her book I can see that was not an accurate view of what she is doing.

[delrem]

30. Y'know, "the race card", esp. when so fallacious and brought out at the very start, isn't pretty.

It doesn't lead me to expect too much from those who deliver it.

For the love of all that's good in the universe, can't you do better?

[BainsBane]

33. "Race card" is a right-wing trope

used as an excuse not to discuss racism. It's what the GOP says to promote a conception of politics focuses on the concerns of white men only. The more you all insist race and gender are not important, the more you provide evidence of the author's very point. My main point of difference with the article is I do not consider such a view progressive or liberal.

This is 2015. White men are no longer the majority of the country and they have not been a demographic that supports the Democratic party in some time. The idea that you think you are entitled to enforce silence over the concerns of key Democratic voting blocks is unfortunate and shows just how pernicious the influence of social conservatism.

[gollygee]

38. Interesting

I don't expect too much from people who use right-wing racist memes like "the race card."

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. "The race card"? That tells me everything I need to know about you. Progressive? Ya right.

[Fumesucker]

31. Not all white progressives are colorblind

Some of them see white very well, or well enough to count white votes anyway.

[Bonobo]

32. Yup, can't accuse her of being colorblind during the 2007 primaries. nt

[Vattel]

36. This is just a dishonest attempt to promote Clinton's bid for the presidency.

It is actually quite comical. The whole "Hillary, but not Bernie, has learned the importance of issues of race" meme is really funny.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. This sermon is from Joan Walsh on talking about racism? Melissa Harris-Perry had words for Joan a

couple of years back:

"Which brings us to a second common strategy of argument about one’s racial innocence: the “I have black friends” claim. I was shocked and angered when Salon’s Joan Walsh used this strategy in her criticism of my piece. Although I disagree with her, I have no problem with Walsh’s decision to take on the claims in my piece. I consider it a sign of respect to publicly engage those with whom you disagree. I was taken aback that Walsh emphasized the extent of our friendship. Walsh and I have been professionally friendly. We’ve eaten a few meals. I invited her to speak at Princeton and I introduced her to my literary agent. We are not friends. Friendship is a deep and lasting relationship based on shared sacrifice and joys. We are not intimates in that way. Watching Walsh deploy our professional familiarity as a shield against claims of her own bias is very troubling. In fact, it is one of the very real barriers to true interracial friendship and intimacy."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163629/epistemology-race-talk

Harris-Perry in this instance sure does not see Walsh as an authority on these issues.....

[frylock]

39. Bernie Sanders doesn't care about black people.

[BainsBane]

40. For the poster who invoked the term strawman

This response would be a perfect example.

[frylock]

44. get used to it..

this will be my standard reply to this crap that Sanders doesn't care about PoC.

[BainsBane]

48. That's one way to show

that you don't care about the issue at all and rather denigrate people who have concerns. I'm sure Hillary Clinton appreciates your efforts. You only help her, O'Malley and every candidate but Sanders with such an approach.

[frylock]

49. Uhh..no. You misrepresent my mocking of concern trolls as not caring about these issues.

Moreover, there is absolutely no confusion as regards Sen Sanders record on supporting issues of civil rights. But the same people feel a need to post these same concerns over and over and over.

[ismnotwasm]

43. You know what I'm loving?

Despite all the bullshit being flung around social Justice *is* now a very important topic. It will be impossible to regulate it to just a matter of economic justice. These conversations are extremely important.

[Comrade Grumpy]

52. Who ever wanted to just talk about economic justice?

Granted, economic justice is Sanders' main theme, but it's not his only one. In the past few days, I've heard him speak out on immigration reform, racial hatred, and the Confederate flag, among other issues. Even marijuana.

This whole effort to create a divide is, well, divisive.

Economic justice and social justice go together. At least they should. One candidate may emphasize one more than the other.

[ismnotwasm]

53. I had the impression it had been

I'm glad Sanders is speaking out. No matter who the Dem candidate is, I'm voting Democrat, although I prefer Hillary.