Member since: Tue Mar 11, 2008, 07:39 PM
Number of posts: 21,020
Number of posts: 21,020
then 87% support from the black community. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026706470 The responses were so ignorant, privileged, paternalistic, moronic and embarrassing that I did an OP about them in AA a few days later. http://www.democraticunderground.com/118714610
This happened a few months before Black Lives Matter. And when Netroots and Seattle did happen, all it did was blow the lid off what was already a fairly serious problem.
So daring to note Hillary's strong minority support in May started it all imo. That was the start of the "but what has she ever done for THEM??!" and "black people don't know what's good for us" crap. It was also the start of the "Bernie is a civil rights legend" mess that spread all over the Internet and had people of all colors over every corner of the Internet looking at Bernie supporters like this:
It's been downhill ever since.
Posted by Number23 | Fri Oct 23, 2015, 04:41 PM (1 replies)
supporters who are breaking their fingers pretending that he's ALWAYS been at Warren's position. That he's always been a strong advocate for racial justice. He has not and his campaign could not make that more obvious.
Even his press secretary has clearly stated she's made this argument to him.
ďOne of my suggestions, he took it and ran with it on Meet the Press, is that racial inequality and economic inequality are parallel issues,Ē she said. ďI you know, economic equality is an issue. Itís something we need to address. But for some people it doesnít matter how much money you make, it doesnít matter where you went to school, it doesnít matter what your parents do. It doesnít matter that Sandra Bland had a job and was on her way to teach for her alma mater. It doesnít matter. None of that matters.Ē
Bernie Sanders took to the advice, Symone Sanders said. She also confronted him with one of the criticisms he faced earlier in the summer, when Black Lives Matter activists rejected his statements about his past civil rights movement work. http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-campaign-adds-young-black-woman-as-new-public#.rl5wb1k1y
If Bernie was such a stalwart advocate for racial justice, it would not be the hallmark of the criticism against his candidacy (along with his stance on guns and the lingering concern from many that he is not a member of the Dem party). So this idea that everyone has just made all of this up in order to criticize him is incredibly stupid and bizarre.
Where I'm at right now is I think Mr. Sanders is the best candidate and rather than protect him against criticism like this, I want to be one of the people pushing him as hard as I can towards a better position because I think it needs to happen.
Then he is very lucky to have you among his supporters. And it will be people like you that get him into the White House.
Posted by Number23 | Mon Sep 28, 2015, 06:41 PM (1 replies)
candidate never made "economics will trump all" their rallying cry and/or mantra or that black people who dare to discuss this are conducting a "jihad" against Bernie Sanders.
If a candidate had never made this message a staple of their campaign, there wouldn't be endless analyses and comments from black people, economists and now apparently Elizabeth Warren saying how clueless and historically ignorant that stance actually is.
To Black Lives Matter activists and sympathizers, who've spent the last year or more calling attention to the deaths of young black men and women (many at the hands of police), Sanders's attitude toward race was all too familiar: Generations of white progressives have kept economic issues at the center of progressivism and issues that affect mostly nonwhites at the margins. They've challenged Sanders to make racism and mass incarceration as important to his campaign as Social Security. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127653/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter
The horizontal organization of Black Lives Matter ensures a diversity of perspectives among participants and even branches. Nevertheless, the now-commonplace claim at the heart of the recent Black Lives Matter protests against Sanders is that white liberals have long reduced racism to class inequality in order to deflect attention from racial disparities. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter-civil-rights-movement/
"We have a fundamental disagreement with Bernie Sanders that racism is somehow an offshoot from economic exploitation when the reality is that race and class in America are inextricably linked to the rise of capitalism in this country," activist Kimberly Ellis told Weigel. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/14/why-bernie-sanders-problems-with-black-voters-go-much-deeper-than-him-just-blaming-the-media/
And that was just with a 12 second search. I'd be here all day if I posted even 1/4 of the stories discussing this, making the "Bernie never said that the focus on economics was most important" denial even more blatant and flat out dumb as well as dishonest.
Posted by Number23 | Mon Sep 28, 2015, 12:08 AM (0 replies)
And at the end of the day, you have summed up the entire crux of the problem in one perfect sentence.
I went and found the OP's longing for the Good Old Days post that did it for me. By the time he'd posted this, I'd long since found him tedious and disruptive, but this was the thread that did it for me.
The "It Getters" as Bobbie Jo calls herself and I love that phrase, are in that thread. Bobbie Jo, frazzled, Raine, J17 and more than a few others tried to get the OP to see how blind and offensive he was being but to no avail. Look at the recs, JAG.
I don't normally respond to this person or even post that often in his OP's but I damn sure did in that one. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024013403#post28
And his responses were exactly as dismissive, uninterested and blithely uncaring as I would expect from an "Ivy League" educated "former" Republican. Or the responses he was allowed to give before his loud mouthed and even wronger self-appointed bodyguards jumped in were.
Posted by Number23 | Sat Apr 26, 2014, 06:35 PM (0 replies)
This is what infuriates me about the "it's not race, it's class" crew. In addition to being astoundingly ignorant about the country's past and present, there is so much preoccupation with the Beyonces and Serena Williamses (see upthread). Because 2 or 20 or 100 black people are dazzlingly rich, racial discrimination doesn't exist or it's "not that big of a deal."
But show them some data that shows their "it's not race, it's class" spew to be the utter bunk that it is, then they suddenly lose their ability to read or respond.
The study, conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Urban Institute (a nonpartisan think tank in Washington) used a method called "pair testing." Two people ó one person of color and one white person ó called and then visited a real estate office to ask about an available property for rent or sale. Both of the pair testers told real estate agents that they had about the same income, assets and employment. Both testers were greeted politely and given appointments to look at properties. But whites were told about and shown more units. They were also more likely to be offered lower rent than their testing partners.
So the white couple with the same finances as the non-white couple not only got shown more units but were offered LOWER RENTS. And here's the kicker --
According to the study, the problem wasn't regional but national. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/06/17/192730233/for-people-of-color-a-housing-market-partially-hidden-from-view
IF that is not WHITE PRIVILEGE then for God's sake, WHAT IS???
And this happened nationally. Not regional -- NATIONAL. Institutionalized. SYSTEMIC. Happens EVERYWHERE, not just in the South or the mid-West or wherever people have convinced themselves that The Racists live. It happens Everywhere in America.
A little-noticed study released last fall by the Pataki administration concluded that black and Hispanic people sentenced for minor felonies or misdemeanors in New York were treated more harshly than whites in similar circumstances. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/nyregion/a-racial-study-finds-differences-in-jail-sentences.html
Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002
Tougher sentences for THE SAME CRIMES. The only difference is the race of the perpetrators.
Researchers say they their new study suggests a reason why African Americans are overrepresented in prison. Black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to prison than whites, on average, but the racial gap is even more pronounced among some judges, suggesting that race is influencing the decision, the study found. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/race_matters_in_sentencing_study_finds/
This is NOT about class!!!! This is about RACE. And until that changes, discussions about white privilege are apt, are relevant and need to be had.
Posted by Number23 | Sat Feb 22, 2014, 07:57 PM (3 replies)
HOW CAN LIBERALS GET MORE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES IN OFFICE?
Since the small caps in the OP apparently whizzed by your head as you seem absolutely INVESTED in blaming everything on corporations.
HOW CAN LIBERALS GET MORE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES IN OFFICE?
This is the question asked over and over and over again by those us beyond disgusted/exasperated and absolutely repulsed by the shrillness of some of the "liberal" posters here. Besides "holding the president's feet to the fire!1" aka "incessantly criticizing Democrats" no one has anything resembling answer. Which I would dare to say, is the VERY CRUX OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM that alot of Americans have with liberals.
HOW CAN LIBERALS GET MORE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES IN OFFICE?
And as for your absolutely astounding comment about "ending homelessness, or SS and Medicare for our seniors, or health care for all children, etc." which is so vague to be almost meaningless, I'll just point out that FDR, the patron saint of GD that so many here seem to spend so much time pleasuring themselves to his memory, got EVERY BIT of the same criticisms that Obama has received, except the left was much more vitriolic and angry with FDR at the time.
FDR got "the New Deal doesn't go far enough" from liberals. Sound familiar?
FDR got "you're too comfy-cozy with bankers" from liberals. Sound familiar?
FDR was accused of "not doing enough for the poor" by liberals. Sound familiar?
He could do no right by the liberal wing during his time and now, hilariously, the man is absolutely lionized by some on the left for the same policies that he was savaged for by the left during his time. It just goes to show that there are people that learn NOTHING from history. Absolutely NOTHING.
And this is to everyone's detriment, in my opinion. It is a crying shame that people who are interested and committed in the greater good and taking care of the less fortunate are also so caught up in being nay-sayers, finger-waggers and constant complainers that they are far more successful in alienating and ostracizing than they have ever, EVER been at affecting lasting change in this country. It is TRULY a damned shame.
Posted by Number23 | Mon May 6, 2013, 06:58 PM (4 replies)
I'm trying to figure out why so many here are acting as though this is so unexpected and SHOCKING!!
Now, I know that I haven't been officially affiliated with the NAACP since my college days, but my understanding is that the NAACP and particularly its leadership, has long been supportive of marriage equality. This surprises me even less than the president's statement from last week.
This was from last year -
This was from 2010 - http://www.theroot.com/views/naacp-reaches-out-gay-rights-groups and referred to past NAACP president Kwesi Mfume's support of gay rights and coordination with Human Rights Campaign in 19 freaking 99!
This was from 2009 - http://prospect.org/article/naacp-takes-stance-against-prop-8
Good news and very encouraging but not surprising in the least. Not getting all of the "oh my god. This is SO unexepected!!!" and "better late than never" from folks here at all.
Posted by Number23 | Sun May 20, 2012, 03:19 AM (2 replies)
"Dr." Boyce Watkins once again leaves me scratching my head...
'CNNís Racist Depiction of The Black Church and Gay Marriage'
On the front page of CNN today, there was an interesting article about the divide between the Obama Administration and the African American church.
The author of the piece seems to be implying that black church opposition to gay marriage is hypocritical, in large part because the bible being quoted by Christians is the same one that promoted the institution of slavery.
I was immediately irked by the insinuation that somehow, anyone who opposes gay marriage is driven by the same ignorance that led some enslavement of other human beings. CNN is a network that has shown itself to be in support of gay rights (Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon are members of the gay community, and the network supported Lemonís book about the agony of being black and gay). The position is admirable, since we can appreciate the concept of providing equal rights to everyone.
I donít oppose gay marriage myself, but I was annoyed by the CNN article. What bothered me most about CNNís depiction of the black church is that it is one that wreaks of the kind of liberal paternalism that treats African Americans as if we are savages who need to be educated by white folks. The comparison of gay marriage opposition to slavery is a deliberate effort to poke at the political pressure point of African Americans, reducing our most painful collective experience into a political football. Itís no different from telling a woman that she should protest the labor practices of Wal-Mart because she was once raped by a Wal-Mart employee.
The bolded bit I actually agree with. And I along with just about every black person on the planet am confused as hell that this seems to be THE issue, the ONLY issue in which the American media gives a flying fishstick about our opinion and seeks us out, but only if the results can be skewed to portray us in the most negative way possible.
The rest of this piece I really have no idea what the brother is raving about. And this ain't the first time.
Posted by Number23 | Thu May 17, 2012, 03:35 AM (18 replies)
I read a really interesting article in Vanity Fair last night about the birth of Occupy Wall Street. You can read it online here http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/occupy-wall-street-201202
Now, what I have always found interesting is that the president's incessant detractors have always touted that the reason Occupy Wall St. was born was because "Obama failed us" and they believe that Occupy is some sort of referendum on the president. When presented with facts that show that the president has voiced support for Occupy and that many of his strongest supporters also support Occupy, of course they just shrug that off. Doesn't fit the preconceived narrative, you see.
What is most striking about that Vanity Fair article is that they interviewed dozens of people that were there when Occupy was conceived and first put into action. These folks do put some blame at the president (angry that bankers weren't put in jail) and logically, put MUCH more emphasis on the overall corruption and inadequacy of the American political system (which has been going on for decades longer than this president has been in office). But really quite startlingly, some of them also ascribe some blame squarely on the political left for many of the reasons that you already noted.
The left had been chattering on about revolutions for a long time, but weíve basically been howling at the moon. And then, all of a sudden, a bunch of young people using social media were able to mobilize not just 500 or 5,000 people, but 50,000 people. They inspired us with their courage and with their techniques.
The left has the ideas and the heart but not the MEANS to implement the change that they seek. Apparently, it was this frustration with the political left that was the impetus (along with many other factors) that led to the creation of Occupy. Folks really need to understand this the next time that loud handful of serial malcontents tries to drop everything at the feet of this president -- as usual.
Posted by Number23 | Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:23 PM (0 replies)
2009 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/124094/majority-say-obama-policies-mostly-liberal.aspx
2010 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynbowman/2010/09/17/americas-ideology-and-obamas/?boxes=opinionschannellatest
Snip: Today most people believe the president is listening more to liberal members of his party. In the July 2010 Fox poll, 47% said his views were too liberal and 39% about right. In an August 2010 CNN poll, 46% said his administration was too liberal, and 39% about right. In a July Princeton Survey Research Associates/Newsweek poll, 36% said President Obama had governed more as a practical problem solver, but 44% said he had governed more as a political liberal.
2011 - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/why_americans_think_obama_is_t.html
Now, there are some stubborn people here who refuse to accept this. They will wax poetic about how "stupid" Americans are to consider this president liberal and how they and they alone know the truth which is that (of course) he is a right-wing conservative Republican.
But these numbers don't lie. And this is the political reality that we all, including this president, must face.
Posted by Number23 | Mon Dec 12, 2011, 06:40 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1