Asking AA group members for thoughts on Clinton's speech on racism

[BainsBane]

What do you all think?

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I'll check in the am - watching a movie

When was this?

[BainsBane]

2. This afternoon

in Harlem.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Thanks for something

From this century!

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. That speech is WHY Hillary Clinton does well in the Black community ...

she speaks to us, not at us; she exhibits a depth of understanding the Black community, that others have not; she gets that "speaking of NY (the Black community), only in terms of crime and poverty, misses what makes NY (the Black community) great."

But what struck me is how willing she was to tie what she planned to do with what Democratic elected officials (by name) are already having success doing ... she name, an achievement dropped her butt off (i.e., paid attention to down ticket Democrats).

You want to get my attention ... tell me what you plan to do; BUT MORE, show me what it looks like (i.e., who is doing it right).

I really can't see Sanders putting together the kind and content of speech as this.

[BainsBane]

6. Thanks for your input

I thought it was quite good, but then I'm a white person and obviously biased toward her. It's interesting to see what others think.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Great speech. eom.

[Kind of Blue]

7. I like it.

Only half way through but everything she's saying resonates strongly.

The woman is making connections, bringing up matters too painful to even think about on a daily basis and exactly how to address them. The structures are already there for how she can try to fulfill her promises.

She knows how to speak my language and I'm glad to listen this one.

Thanks, this helps alot.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. 17:30

About at that point she shows she listened to O'Malley. How do you get poor people to good jobs? Infrastructure development. Black women are the largest group of women entrepreneurs/small business owners. Paycheck fairness would impact our families in a positive way.

Connecting black entrepreneurs with business loans is critical to community economic advancement.

She tapped into the rugged individualism that the marginalized black community has had to develop in order to survive.

What she doesn't say - $15 an hour means nothing to someone who won't get hired due to the color of their skin.

A 25 year old black MBA isn't looking for a $15 an hour job. They shouldn't be. That's below their level of ambition. That little pup can't show up at Thanksgiving raving about their $15 an hour cashier job. Their only hope is to start their own business.

And it makes sense why my 22 year old Princeton Grad nephew working for a hedge fund in a bank in Manhattan jumped to her when O'Malley dropped out. He has a laser sense of purpose in life - in 8 years he wants to run his own VC that specifically serves minorities and women.

The dominant culture pushed us back to the 1920's during President Obama's administration. That means you have millennial in the black community who are willing to go it alone. That's what my grandfather did with his Morehouse diploma. No one was hiring him on Wall Street or anywhere - he flipped America the bird and made bank. These Millennials with ambition aren't back in the 60's - they are fighting for dominance over Buchanan and Gatsby.

She is addressing that - while also addressing their peers who didn't have exposure to the entrepreneurial spirit within the black community to bring more to the community.

Whether a high school drop out in Newark or a Wall Street "Bankster" - a BLM activist or an Environmental Racism Activist - her focus is clear:

Give access to the tools then let's get out of their way.

[wildeyed]

11. There was so much good in that speech.

When I decided to support Clinton, it was because of her small business platform. I own a small business, so it was clear to me after I read the policy that she really understood the problems that small business face. And that is mostly access to capital. And she understands that community banks are far more likely to lend to small business than regular banks. This is not an applause line or ideology. This is not something that most people would even understand. But she is absolutely right, and that gave me confidence that she can see the problems of "regular" people and find solid solutions that might actually pass congress.

I did question whether community banks are always fair lenders to minority communities. Seems like the one I dealt with was as white and male as the commercial banks, and as a result are probably somewhat biased in their distribution of loans. But it sounds like she sees that too, and will at least attempt to correct that inequity. Seeing the problem is the first part. Without that, there will never be a solution. And what is measured improves. Sounds like she is willing to start measuring the inequities. I too believe there is a huge amount of untapped talent in under-served communities of color. If we can set that talent free, we will see an economic bump for everyone.

The other part I liked was her education ideas. Their is really no excuse for how segregated the schools have become. And she called the voter ID what it is, Jim Crow. I would like to hear more about that too. But that was such a policy dense speech already, no room I guess.

[Uponthegears]

9. As a Bernie supporter

and someone who watched friends, yes, including northern liberals, disappear (yea, I mean get murdered)while we struggled to fight voter discrimination in the 60's South, and who himself eventually overcame, let me start with a compliment and a note of agreement with the Hillary supporters in this group who have contributed to this string.

I think Hillary spoke strongly to those who have largely beat back racism on their own. I am certain the black entrepreneur who needs nothing more than access to capital to lift himself/herself and the community to new heights surely approves of her message. Were I still that young NYU Law graduate I once was, I have no doubt I would be cheering, saying just as did an earlier poster, "Give me a fair shot and get out of my way." I also think she spoke strongly to those who are unbowed, the families who are saying, "Give my kid the same shot as you give that kid in the burbs and she will put them to shame." I also though she spoke to those who through no fault of their own have been directly harmed by everyone from craven Republican governors in Michigan who poison their families to city officials who rob them with ridiculous fines and fees in Ferguson.

Also let me add that I understand the frustration of those who want to know why the popular caricature of PoC has become a reference point not just for those who want to keep PoC down, but those who want to help lift them up.

That being said, let me turn to those to whom she does not speak at all. I have spent almost my entire career representing the "kids on the corner" who aren't there just hanging out with their friends but are there with a pocketful of rocks and a 9, the ones whose parents left hem so f'd up that they would shoot some innocent store clerk in the face and not think twice about it, kid who would shove some guy half his size, the petty criminals working the street, in short, the PoC who are at least close to the caricature we endure. They count too. But I will tell you sure as hell that the main reason they fit that stereotype is because this country (and its preceding European colonies) spent 400 years using the institution of slavery to commit both physical and cultural genocide against a civilized people, to destroy even the memory of family, of relationship, of the value of their labor, of every good and decent thing they had created in the homeland. They followed it up with more than a century of overt institutional racism to make sure they couldn't simply blend into the culture of the dominant race, and then, after stripping them of their cultural heritage, after blocking most of them from integrating into the dominant culture, after putting them at a social and economic disadvantage, they placed the yoke of capitalism across their shoulders.

I cheer our great families, our entrepreneurs, our great kids, all of us who overcame everything that was stacked against us. Hillary cheers them. In fact, most of the dominant culture will at least claim they are cheering for them. It's easy for them to cheer for people who have the same values and aspirations they do.

But there are also victims of the greatest human rights violation in the history of the world who have not overcome. Who have been broken in heart and soul. When Hillary defends capital punishment, when she carefully includes "non-violent" when she talks about the victims of a criminal justice system which is itself little more than a tool to perpetuate the chains and human disenfranchisement of the plantation, when she fails to scream murder and cover-up over Ferguson, when she belittles BLM . . . she is drawing a line at the point where she will not offend a dominant culture which to this day refuses to take responsibility for the destruction IT CAUSED.

For all the great things she said in that speech, she is not standing against racism.

[BainsBane]

18. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you

I do very much appreciate your thoughts on the speech, and my intent here in not to try to convince you to vote for Hillary. I respect everyone's rights to support the candidate they feel best speaks to what they care about. I find it incredibly condescending when white people announce to people of color that there is something wrong with them for not supporting the white person's chosen candidate, that this or that politician is better for them, just as I resent when they tell me that I don't know who best represents my interests as a woman. I will instead share with you my views and offer both agreements and disagreements on your assessment of Clinton's speech/policy positions.

I appreciate and agree with your assessment of racism toward the most marginalized black citizens, the "corner kids" you represent as a lawyer. I likewise oppose the death penalty. I think it would be impossible to convincingly argue it isn't racist in its application and, I believe, quite likely its intent. As a historian, I've written about the relationship between the death penalty and slavery (in a country outside the US), and policing as a means of control over a 19th century population of slaves and free people of color. I have evidence in that context to link state-mandated violence to slavery and racism, and I think it likely there are similar correlations in the US.

I support Clinton despite my opposition to the death penalty because the president has at most a marginal impact on capital punishment. Most executions are done at the state level, something a president has no power over. Their fundamental influence is in the appointment of SCOTUS judges, and liberal justices a President Clinton is likely to appoint (given her commitment to judges disposed to overturning Citizens United, Buckley, and related cases as well as her unyielding commitment to women's reproductive rights and voting rights) would, I believe, be disposed to rule that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Ultimately, I don't believe her personal views on the death penalty play a significant role in the duties of the presidency. I also disagree that her position on that one issue means she doesn't address racism because if that were true it would mean a president, any president, could have very little impact on racism. Obama opposes the death penalty, but he has not taken action against it. It simply isn't within the purview of the presidency.

Your point about Clinton's use of the term non-violent is one I hadn't considered but I think is well taken.

I do disagree with you on a few points of your assessment of her speech and policy positions. I do not agree that she ignores the poorest and most marginalized black citizens you represent in favor of those who have overcome racism. Rather, she takes, in my opinion, a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to the subject than Sanders. In her speech, she talks about prison reform and jobs programs targeted at the poorest inner city and rural areas, with particular attention to young adults. Those are policy positions he has advanced since the beginning of her 2016
campaign: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/workforce-and-skills/
She certainly played a role in creating the carceral society that dominates the US today, as she advocated for the crime bills passed under her husband's presidency. Bernie, however, voted for those bills, which makes him as much if not more responsible, in my opinion.

I see the fundamental difference between Clinton and Sanders on the issue of racial equality is that she does not see racism as the result of class inequality. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/ Ultimately, Sanders maintains a worldview in which class is at the center, and he has incorporated some appeals to people of color and women within that existing framework. Hence his focus on prison reform and unemployment, positions he has articulated for years but has injected African Americans into his preexisting conceptual framework. Here is the problem. Jobs programs and free college in a racist and sexist society will disproportionately benefit white men. The same racism that keeps employers from hiring African American youth will not disappear because the minimum wage increases. The same sexism that means that 85% of jobs in infrastructure related development go to men will continue even if trillions of dollars are injected in the system. The courts have worked to maintain white supremacy in particular by making Affirmative Action anemic and essentially non-existent. That is particularly true in regard to higher education, Bernie's much touted "free college," where race-based preferences have been struck down by courts.

Clinton specifically addressed the vast inequities in K-12 education that cement generations of poverty. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/k-12-education/ Bernie has no such proposal. (Or at least he didn't as of about 10 days ago). Without serious attention to inequality in K-12, children in poor communities, which are disproportionately non-white, will not be in a position to take advantage of "free college."

Also note that Clinton's plans provide for tuition free college for poor and middle-class families. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/ She does not, however, support those same benefits for families with incomes over $250k a year. She also proposes that students work 10 hours a week to contribute to their own education. I see nothing wrong with that. I myself grew up in a poor urban area, and I worked from age 10 and earned W-2 income from age 13. As a poor student who earned good grades, I benefited from a lot of scholarship money, but I also held work study jobs, which is extremely common for college students. Frankly, I see no reason why college students should not work 10 hours a week. What they should not have to do is work 40 hours a week while trying to go to school full time, which happens a lot now.

There is no question that particular attention is needed to address the poverty and lack of opportunity faced by the corner kids you represent. Jobs programs, while essential, won't solve racism. Sanders comments about how he would be better than Obama on solving racism because "kids wouldn't be on the corners" struck me as problematic, and I know some other African Americans have found it so. The problem is not that he isn't right to focus jobs programs on those young people, but hanging out on a corner is not a cause of racism. Unemployment is a problem, but high black unemployment is the result of racism. Additionally, kids can and do hang out on corners when they have jobs or after school. There is nothing illegal or illicit about their doing so. There is, however, something problematic with a societal notion that sees any group of black youth as criminal or dangerous. I see a troubling assumption in Sanders rhetoric that associates blackness and criminality. Obviously you see it differently, or you wouldn't be supporting him.

I also think Clinton's speech makes some important points about, for example, environmental racism, the sort of thing that results in the city incineration facilities being placed in North Minneapolis and never more affluent white neighborhoods, or VT's waste being shipped to poor Hispanic communities in Texas.

As someone who has lived in the inner city most of my life, I think the issue of gun control is a crucial one that Clinton is right on and Sanders is wrong. I also see this as about race. I believe US gun policy is racist, that far too many are comfortable with gun violence in inner city neighborhoods and that the deaths of people in communities like mine simply don't rate. I believe that the tendency to uphold the rights of gun zealots and the NRA, an overwhelmingly white and frankly racist organization, over the rights of urban communities to establish their own regulations to diminish gun violence is problematic and frankly borders on genocidal. I've lived with far too much gun violence--shots outside my window far too many nights, bullets sprayed in front on my house, at my car, and in the windows of the houses on my block. Then we see legislation like Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrines which are increasingly used to justify the murder of black men. I have been an advocate for greater gun control for some time now, and I am familiar with not only the voting records of the various candidates but the code words used by pro-gun advocates. I disagree strongly with Bernie on gun control, and the issue is a very important one for me.

I thank you for your thoughts on the speech and found especially interesting your discussion of the young people you represent as a lawyer.

[Uponthegears]

19. That may be

one of the most impressive and considered posts I have ever read. Thank you!

[WIProgressive88]

20. I am not a person of color and this is slightly off topic, but this exchange between you and

Uponthegears demonstrates why the African American Group is so much more enjoyable to read than so much of DU these days; informative, well-thought-out posts from intelligent people that manage to express differing views without getting nasty. Kudos to the two of you, and kudos to the group hosts and regulars for making this forum such a wonderful place.

[BainsBane]

23. Thanks. And I agree about the group

and uponthegears' post as well.

[Kind of Blue]

21. Thank you, BainsBane, for a well-written

article that I think connects so many dots and says what I know I can't express, understanding there were no clean hands with either candidate about issues concerning us, with a detailed look at what each will do about them going forward.

[Kind of Blue]

22. Thank you, Uponthegears, for your thorough post

opening the door for BainsBane to thoroughly respond. They're both well thought out and written.

[Kind of Blue]

10. Transcript here.

http://showmeprogress.com/2016/02/16/hillary-clinton-harlem-new-york-february-16-2016/

[BainsBane]

12. Thanks for this

Transcripts are especially useful when you want to review something without watching the whole speech again.

[Kind of Blue]

14. Yup.

You're welcome

[JRLeft]

13. Lip service.

[Uponthegears]

15. Because

I am certain you were looking for honest input, so let me also say

You're welcome

[BainsBane]

16. I am actually

but I thought I'd hang back to see if other AA members responded to your post rather than immediately inserting myself in the conversation. I actually agree with almost all of what you say about racism.

[Uponthegears]

17. I really appreciate that

I tried to be fair vis a vis the speech (which I thought was really good even if she isn't my preferred candidate).

Thank you much!

[Chitown Kev]

24. K & R

I've heard some of this read some of the transcripts but my gut continues to tell me that Hillary Clinton is not to be trusted but I will give this a listen tonight.