HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Did "All Lives Matte...

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:05 PM

Did "All Lives Matter" Lead to "White Supremacists Liberals"?

Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2015, 11:59 PM - Edit history (2)

In response to the hand-wringing about Black Lives Matter protesters calling Bernie supporters "White Supremacist Liberals", Spider Jerusalem posted an article on White Fragility. Immediately someone demonstrated their white fragility by alerting that OP. I was on that jury, that happily concluded that DU should debate such matters, and coincidentally I was on another jury concerning a complaint over another DU member (Bravenak) who had been Alert swarmed and ended up being Flagged for Review over her comments conveying the source of the "White Supremacist Liberals" discourse. Personally I think Democrats - especially Bernie, who has been disrupted TWICE - needs to hear more about this.

Instead of recoiling from being called "White Supremacist Liberals", perhaps we should examine where this meme is coming from: check on whether it has some basis and respond to the accusation from a place of knowledge.

It occurred to me that the "White Supremacist Liberal" accusation may have snowballed from the "All Lives Matter" issue.

A lot of smart, otherwise good and well-meaning white progressives/liberals have been very pushy about saying "All Lives Matter". I've posted a few times that I thought both Hillary's and O'Malley's use of the therm was a deliberate signal to these very people who have been anxious to reaffirm "All Lives Matter": they think it's an important humanist idea and the basis of universal reason. For some reason they absolutely refuse to look at it's connection with White Supremacists on Twitter and many of them were alienated from the #BLM movement because of vandalism during protests last year and because of the recent disruption to Netroots Nation. When I try to educate them with what little I know, they are highly resistant and insist other people must organize in the "effective" way they always did and must seek to "get white people on their side". There is very little awareness that this is radical action because Democrats have had the black vote for a long time, and we've had a black President for 8 years, but important changes that are needed now didn't happen.

Is it possible that this pushiness about using "All Lives Matter" is causing the backlash of "White Supremacist Liberals" among some #BLM discussions?

None of the Primary candidates have come out to talk about why the neediness around pushing the phrase "All Lives Matter" might be a symptom of "white fragility". None of them have used that to open a dialogue on racism and to acknowledge and legitimize Black Lives Matter. Apparently only O'Malley has issued a Criminal Justice Reform plan.

Let's get beyond the playground grouchiness over being called a mean name and look for the sources of that accusation (whether we believe it's justified or not).

UPDATE:
While searching for something completely different, I stumbled across this article with tweets from the 2014 Millions March for Justice about "allies" chanting "All Lives Matter". I'm unfamiliar with Twitchy - I hope this isn't an RW source. Scroll down for several tweets objecting to the chants.

http://twitchy.com/2014/12/13/they-can-go-home-white-allies-at-millionsmarchnyc-offend-with-all-lives-matter-chants/

The original intention of #BlackLivesMatter hashtag from Alicia Garza with comment on All Lives Matter, Allies, and White Supremacy:
http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/

This inspired me to Google "Allies" + "All Lives Matter". Here are some pertinent results:

http://www.upworthy.com/4-things-you-should-do-when-youre-told-black-lives-matter

http://theithacan.org/news/ithaca-college-students-discuss-how-to-be-a-white-ally/ (note the use of "white supremacist social structure" in the last sentence).

http://groupthink.kinja.com/yes-all-lives-matter-now-shut-up-about-it-1666463385

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pastor-renita-marie-mdiv/confessing-blacklivesmatter_b_7926414.html

https://www.damemagazine.com/2015/06/14/what-white-people-really-mean-when-they-say-alllivesmatter (warning: I got a security alert on this site)

http://www.jewishheritagemonth.com/adl/official-blogs-from-the-anti-defamation-league-adl-blogs.php (read the last line of this about White Supremacists imitating the #BLM movement).


49 replies, 3877 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Did "All Lives Matter" Lead to "White Supremacists Liberals"? (Original post)
daredtowork Aug 2015 OP
cali Aug 2015 #1
TheBlackAdder Aug 2015 #7
daredtowork Aug 2015 #9
TM99 Aug 2015 #35
daredtowork Aug 2015 #36
TM99 Aug 2015 #37
daredtowork Aug 2015 #38
TM99 Aug 2015 #39
Marr Aug 2015 #10
6chars Aug 2015 #26
ljm2002 Aug 2015 #30
daredtowork Aug 2015 #34
6chars Aug 2015 #46
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Aug 2015 #2
daredtowork Aug 2015 #11
daredtowork Aug 2015 #44
virtualobserver Aug 2015 #3
daredtowork Aug 2015 #12
virtualobserver Aug 2015 #15
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #4
riversedge Aug 2015 #5
applegrove Aug 2015 #6
daredtowork Aug 2015 #18
applegrove Aug 2015 #23
daredtowork Aug 2015 #25
seveneyes Aug 2015 #8
Starry Messenger Aug 2015 #13
daredtowork Aug 2015 #24
loyalsister Aug 2015 #27
Starry Messenger Aug 2015 #28
loyalsister Aug 2015 #33
whathehell Aug 2015 #29
Cleita Aug 2015 #14
romanic Aug 2015 #16
daredtowork Aug 2015 #20
Hydra Aug 2015 #17
riversedge Aug 2015 #19
daredtowork Aug 2015 #21
BumRushDaShow Aug 2015 #31
riversedge Aug 2015 #32
joshcryer Aug 2015 #40
OneGrassRoot Aug 2015 #47
BumRushDaShow Aug 2015 #49
OneGrassRoot Aug 2015 #48
Skittles Aug 2015 #22
tblue37 Aug 2015 #41
daredtowork Aug 2015 #42
tblue37 Aug 2015 #43
daredtowork Aug 2015 #45

Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:09 PM

1. Bernie Sanders never uttered those words

 

And sorry but this shit is indefensible. Period.

Elaborated on here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027060850

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:28 PM

7. x4,263,217

.

I don't do x100 or x1,000.

I'm a odd person.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:32 PM

9. I didn't say he did

But are you sure he didn't? The morning after Hillary's faux pas, there were some posts about a horrible NPR interview where a radio host was trying to corner Bernie into saying "All Lives Matter". It sounded like she was successful at getting her sound bite at some point.

I'm a strong Bernie supporter, and I suspect the disruption of his events to be at influenced if not funded by Hillary supporters. So I think you are reading into my post an exoneration of the disruption of his event that is not there.

I'm looking at the broader cause of the #BLM disruptions and where the phrase "White Supremacist Liberals" might be coming from. I'm not justifying it - just looking for where it's coming from so it can be addressed in a knowledgeable way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 01:17 AM

35. No, no, and fucking no again.

 

This is why stopping this shit matters. And if you are Sanders supporter, cut this shit out.

He has never said 'All lives matter'. Not once. Not ever. He did not get roped into it. I keep seeing this shit now more and more.

Mission fucking accomplished.

Only Clinton and only O'Malley have used that phrase. And of those two, only O'Malley has apologized and worked hard since then, like Sanders, to address BLM concerns.

Stop wasting mental energy rationalizing the untenable. Anyone can support BLM without supporting two AA extremists with an axe to grind and an agenda that is all their own. 'White Supremacist Liberals' is bigotry plain and simple. I don't need to look at "All Lives Matter" to know this. If your premise was in any way, shape, or form correct then these 'activists' should be protesting the truly racist GOP men and women who have used that phrase. They should be protesting Clinton who used that phrase and NEVER apologized or owned it. They are not. Reflect on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #35)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 01:42 AM

36. This is where I got the information about the NPR interview

The next morning after Hillary's interview, there was an NPR interviewer who was trying to trap Bernie into saying the same thing:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026901501

I do support Bernie, but I don't think it helps anyone to pretend something didn't happen that's actually been discussed on DU.

I totally agree that they should primarily be protesting Hillary, and if you knew anything about my history of posting you would know that I absolutely think Hillary was race-baiting with "All Lives Matter" and regard her as stealth Third Way. I constantly point out that she has not done anything about the evisceration of welfare infrastructure.

That said, I don't appreciate your bullying tone here. Why don't YOU listen to the NPR and come to terms with the truth that we ALL have to address the "All Lives Matter" problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #36)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 01:50 AM

37. Did you actually watch the interview?

 

I did. In real time. I know what it was, and I know what was said. And Sanders did not fall for the trap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #37)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 01:58 AM

38. I listened to it when I was waking up that morning

Last edited Mon Aug 10, 2015, 03:09 AM - Edit history (1)

And haven't listened to it since. I'm not a radio person, so I don't feel like listening to it again. I do realize a hostile interviewer was trying to trap Bernie the morning after the Hillary interview.

If Bernie did manage not to fall for it, good for him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 02:09 AM

39. I am sorry if I am being harsh.

 

I understand you want to support BLM. I understand that you want to support Sanders. What these two outliers did has harmed both BLM and Sanders. Please stop trying to rationalize their bad behavior by seeking reasons for it.

Rage and bigotry do not need reasons - only wood to burn. Those two obviously have that in abundance. Thankfully they are young. Maybe they will grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:33 PM

10. Hillary did, but she's strangely exempt from the disruption campaign.

 

Odd, too, considering she's so much more high profile, and therefore an infinitely better target for anyone who just wants to get their message out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 08:48 PM

26. why is that strange?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6chars (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 10:03 PM

30. Hillary did not have to be prodded to utter the words...

..."all lives matter". She said it while speaking at a black church -- Christ the King United Church of Christ in Florissant, Missouri, on June 24 or thereabouts. The church is within 5 miles of Ferguson, Missouri.

From the NPR article:

Before using the phrase, Clinton was retelling an anecdote about the lessons she learned from her mother.

"I asked her, 'What kept you going?' Her answer was very simple. Kindness along the way from someone who believed she mattered. All lives matter."

To some in the pews, what Clinton said fell flat.


http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417112956/hillary-clintons-three-word-gaffe-all-lives-matter

Apparently she was criticized on social media... but not by BLM, who never said a word about it, nor have they disrupted or demonstrated at any of her events. I don't need BLM or anyone else to challenge every remark made by a candidate. Anyone who is in the public eye will occasionally make a gaffe, whether large or small. That is not the issue. The issue is there is one candidate being held to an impossibly high standard, while all of the others -- whether Democrat or Republican -- are getting a pass. That is strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 12:04 AM

34. There seems to be a massive failure to do background research

Alicia Garza, the person who created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, makes the terms of the movement an the meaning of "All Lives Matter" very clear:
http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 08:55 AM

46. How was Hillary's mother supposed to do background research

since she died before Black Lives Matter began?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:10 PM

2. I'm highly dubious that it did.

The 'white supremacist liberals' line was tossed out there at an entire crowd of folks who didn't say anything about all lives mattering, apparently by a woman who had supported Palin and wanted the GOP to 'groom' her, and who, in another pic, is posing drinking a glass of clear liquid while wearing a shirt with a statement about drinking white tears on it. That sounds more like simply someone who doesn't like liberals in general, or whites much either.

Is it 'white fragility' to point out these things that she herself posted on social media?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:36 PM

11. It didn't have to come from that particular crowd

It could have been a thing that #BLM group was discussing amongst themselves, and then they blurted it out at the event. I want to get at that original discussion.

I think this is what Bravenak meant in her (hidden) comment that she tried to tell people but was told those ideas were "crazy". She used the phrasing "y'all" just like in the Facebook posts of the Seattle #BLM people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 03:28 AM

44. My point is being lost here

I agree with all of this, and I'm also a proponent of the Hillary campaign probably being somewhere behind these specific disruptions.

What my OP is about, however, is where the particular idea of "white supremacists liberals" come from - which *any* #BLM activist might bring up at any minute if there is some background conversation going on about "white supremacy". And that background conversation IS going on - you can see it even in the post from #BlackLivesMatter hashtag creator Alicia Garza that I added above.

What I wanted to explore in the post is not whether people at that particular event brought on that "white supremacists liberals" response but where that idea comes from in general and whether it's being provoked or exacerbated in any way. I worry that use of "All Lives Matter" exacerbates it. I may be wrong, but I think it's worth discussing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:10 PM

3. I think that a Sarah Palin button on a backpack led to "White Supremacist Liberals" at the rally n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:37 PM

12. Tea Party meet BLM? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:45 PM

15. Black Republicans don't like being harassed and killed by police either....

 

It isn't a progressives only issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:11 PM

4. Only the guilty insist they're innocent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:15 PM

5. Lovely OP. I just read an article related to your OP that

I think fits in.


I will be back in a bit but for now--I think the BLM movements has exposed some problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:16 PM

6. Really it is up there with the great feminist war on the DU.

I'm sure the GOP is out there fomenting this building war between people on the left. The GOP have paid trolls too. I would just assume saying all lives matter is just bait and never say it again. And apologize for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:49 PM

18. Such disruption can have many sources

That confusion went on when people tried to deal with vandalism around the Ferguson-related protests. People didn't know whether to attribute it to black bloc anarchists, police infiltrators, CIA provocateurs, GOP provocateurs, valid protesters practicing diversity of tactics, or thieves working under cover of the protests. The surrounding protesters were simultaneously told they were responsible for keeping these violent people under control if they wanted to keep the surrounding community's support and they were supposed to stay away from them and let the police handle it since they could be dangerous. Their actions did undermine community support and it resulted in a protest curfew in Oakland. At the same time, I wonder if there should be such a thing as a "tame" protest: shouldn't the implied threat of escalation be part of what propels the larger community to do something? If everyone knows its just going to be a tame protest, it's just going to continue to be business as usual.

Anyway, while I agree the Bernie event disruption was paid trolling of some sort (Hillary, GOP, possibly both), I don't think we should discount the idea that when establishment politicians use the phrase "All Lives Matter", it might generate backlash.

I also want to make it clear that I'm just speculating here - I've only been privy to this discussion on the "All Lives Matter" side, not the "White Supremacist Liberal" side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 08:41 PM

23. Black Lives Matter is a movement. All Lives Matter is a debasement of BLM. There is no room for that

baiting. Which is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 08:46 PM

25. This is what my OP seeks to clarify. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:29 PM

8. No, the party crashers manifested their own delusions

 

To what end I do not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:39 PM

13. I think it goes back further than that.

There is a long-standing critique that liberal/left spaces tend to be overwhelmingly white. Black feminists have been pointing this out about white feminist spaces for years. Asking nicely over and over is not getting the job done.

It can be painful to realize that your overly white organization may be replicating the kind of thing one claims to be against. But necessary soul-searching better serves everyone in the long run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 08:45 PM

24. While everyone is denying its about economics

I still think its about economics. Because its economic power that gives people access to the social capital that's necessary to insert themselves into the leadership positions to control those spaces.

This is a question I've asked myself philosophically for years: why do some people get to be in charge and others don't. Even more crucially: why do some people join those spaces and others don't. There is a group I belong to right now that I believe is important to join: the leadership is tightly controlled. I'm asking myself why they are the leaders: I would like to participate in the leadership in some respect: my efforts have been deflected. During the meetings we are given the impression there "is no leadership" and this is a "community effort". Yet for large gatherings, there is clearly an organizing committee and speakers are selected. The press goes to certain members who are referred to as leaders. There is leadership that is very, very, very tightly controlled. It bothers me. Normally I'd quit such a group on principle, but I share the goals of the group, so I guess I will participate for now. But the lie about it being a communal effort with no leaders bothers me. Certain people are doing the organizing and putting it on their resumes. If money gets involved, they will be paid and offered jobs.

This, I believe is the complaint about the power over white spaces. However, you can't insert yourself into the place of power, even if you're white, by pointing out the unfairness. If there is a rule book, you can work the rules to get to the top. But mostly it's about the money. It's about favor trading and implied influence peddling. This is how white people do business. When I went to the Black Lives Matter protests and saw how they tried to have rules and still constantly had to tell white wannabe leaders to step back, it seemed something like a fantasy of black-controlled space. Those white dudes felt entitled to grab the mic because they had been GROOMED for leadership and were impatient with people trying to create *alternative* space. They were entitled to the existing real space because all their social capital gains up until that present moment had "qualified" them to lead. Meanwhile, the two young black women "disrupted" and "hijacked" Bernie's space because they were "unqualified" to be in that space.

I do understand the social-over-economic argument. I understand that race issues have been buried under economic issues that "impact everyone". I understand that social programs that could have helped everyone were tanked because of racism. But just because we need to address the racism at the root doesn't mean we don't need to take care of the economic problem as well. Unless there is more equitable economic distribution, there will never be more equitable possession and leadership of space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 09:36 PM

27. Yes

While Black citizens and groups struggle to get the attention of politicians, their staff meet with white leadership of many liberal organizations.

But necessary soul-searching better serves everyone in the long run.


Yes. We are a part of it. There have been a lot of conversations about white privilege, but it is deeper than that. White people do not just have things a little easier, there is a higher premium placed on our lives. Not all white people have and do accept the benefits without question, but many of us go about our lives enjoying our superiority and on some level try to protect it. A way of expressing white superiority is to lecture people on how to respond to their experiences. It is especially biting when there is an undercurrent of "don't screw things up for the rest of us with your outrage and demand to be heard."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 09:47 PM

28. Your posts have been terrific today.

DU is loading superslow for me right now, otherwise I'd be +1ing all of your work.

"A way of expressing white superiority is to lecture people on how to respond to their experiences." This is so key. People are doing this, and need to stop it. Everyone who is doing it needs to ask themselves if *they* like it when others tell them how to feel? No one likes to feel patronized, or have their experiences be negated by someone who doesn't share their point of view. Why would one do it to people feeling pain about racism and death of Black people in the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 11:05 PM

33. Thanks

I have had the good fortune to spend time listening to what Black people have to say, and one of my take-away is that there is so much we need to hear and attend to if we are going to be truly supportive.

Why would one do it to people feeling pain about racism and death of Black people in the US?


Again it's white supremacy. People participate without realizing it. There seems to be an expectation to be heard and respected without question, if a person can quote MLK. Meanwhile, there is no recognition of the implied claim of supremacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 09:52 PM

29. I:m sorry, but I really don't get the critique

of liberal/left or feminist spaces "being overwhelmingly white".....If that is the case, what is the reason? NO one is keeping them out, and that I know, having been a part of many of them over the last 40 years.

Anyone even remotely familiar with NOW and MS. Magazine, two of the most nationally rkecognized feminist institutions, has to know that both are, and have been, extremely inclusive over the years...Ms. Magazine devotes at least 70% of ALL their issues to minority women, and has done so for more than 35 years. If PoC aren't interested in joining them, it's not necessarily the fault of those organizations...At some point, people have to take some responsibility for their actions or lack of such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:42 PM

14. What is a white supremacist, really? First, there is the KKK that we are all familiar with,

the cross burning, sheet wearing, lynchers of black men in the south. These are the guys most people are familiar with.

But there is the northern version founded in Hayden Idaho by a Reverend Richard Butler, now deceased and hopefully burning in Hell. The Rev. Butler founded the Church of the Aryan nation. Supposedly, they are Christian, but won't acknowledge that Jesus was a Jew. You see they hate Jews, hispanics, African American and anyone who isn't European white. Their hero is Hitler. They tattoo themselves with swastikas. They don't believe the United States government has sovereignty over them so don't feel our laws pertain to them. Many of them beat their wives because supposedly the men are supreme. They hoard guns because they believe they will go to war with the USA one day. They congregate at that awful website known as Storm Front. They make the Freepers look like harmless morons.

I have known some of these clowns personally because I had to work alongside a few of them when I lived in Idaho. I actually had to call the sheriff on one of them who was yelling at and slapping his wife, my co-worker. She got mad at me because he got arrested and told me I should mind my own business. I had to listen to all the name calling of Jews, Blacks, Hispanics and other PoC. I couldn't do anything about it except tell them to shut up which I did often.

Well, now that you know what a real White Supremacist is, I hope you can see why comparing Bernie, who is Jewish and lost family to Hitler, is so over the top and egregiously cruel that I have no words. This would be insulting to any white American who wasn't one of that club, but to accuse a Jewish person of association with Swastika wearing, Hitler adulators is beyond awful. I like Bravenak and hope to see her posting soon because I know if she really realized what she was saying she wouldn't have.

But never ever accuse anyone of being a White Supremacist, especially a Jew, unless you are very sure they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:45 PM

16. I don't believe so.

All Lives Matter was a misquided attempt to be more inclusive with police brutality incidents that affect non-black people. I don't see the connection between that and what these morons said to the crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to romanic (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:53 PM

20. If there was an underlying conversation about White Supremacist Liberals

where do you think it stemmed from? Just the idea of white privilege seems too general: this seems like a specific discussion to me.

someone threw in above that one of the participants was a Sarah Palin supporter, so ironically she might have been formulating some sort of Black Tea Party ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:49 PM

17. Screw the white supremacists

All Lives Matter. If they don't, and only some lives matter, then how far have we really come?

The white supremacist liberal comment was cute too- blatant racism from the supposed protestor of racism.

It all needs to stop. The Police violence, the structural racism and class warfare, the WH who won't touch it...we have a long battle ahead of us, and BLM already disrupted the movement for a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:52 PM

19. Interrupting Bernie: Exposing the White Supremacy of the American Left

I kinda wish Bernie had listened to what was said and then responded to the words. I realize it was the organizers who shut it down but I do think they would have accommodated Bernie's request if he had asked. IMHO


http://changefromwithin.org/2015/08/09/interrupting-bernie-exposing-the-white-supremacy-of-the-american-left/


August 9, 2015
Interrupting Bernie: Exposing the White Supremacy of the American Left




.......But hereís the thing Ė whatís powerful about these interruptions from Black women is less how it has changed the tone of the Democratic campaigns and more about what they have exposed in the White left.

I see these protests as less about the individual candidates themselves and more about how their White base refuses to center Black lives and Black issues. Itís notable that White Bernie supporters, who consider themselves the most progressive of us all, shouted down and booed Black women who dared to force Blackness into the center of White space.

Because letís be honest, every Bernie rally is White space.

In watching the over-the-top angry response from White liberals about Bernie being interrupted in Seattle, I canít help but think of the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on White moderates:

?w=682&h=427

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 08:21 PM

21. The optics are interesting but the effect is questionable

Popular events are the only way Bernie has the way to build his campaign since he doesn't have big money like Hillary, yet Black Lives Matter has hijacked his space twice.

As a work of public art, putting blackness in the middle of white space is a valid point. But, as Bernie supporters keep asking, why is it focused on Bernie's space.

The further question is - why is this a problem of the "American Left"? It seems to be a problem of the American Political Establishment in general: Right, Left, Middle, Up, Down, All Around. If Marissa runs to Sarah Palin, she might find personal promotion for herself, but not for the African American people.

The Black Lives Matter movement is about making race a priority in the political conversation. It would be exciting if the candidates worked with that movement and integrated that into their events and advanced racial justice in their platforms: that seems to me to be the best way to put blackness in the middle of white space.

As for these young women who are simply being in white space and calling everyone "White Supremacist Liberals" -- the accusation is hollow until people understand the argument that underlies it.

Personally, I'd like to get to the source of the "race problems are always buried by economics first excuses" meme - this is the source is the source of the weird social vs. economic split that's being wielded against Bernie. I think a key way he can address it is in noting that social programs are always tanked by racist dog whistles: that's about race, not about economics, though it causes economic problems for everyone. White Supremacy is killing us. What's a matter with Kansas? White Supremacy. We need to put it starkly in those terms. Parading around "All Lives Matter" is getting in the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 10:21 PM

31. What you posted is not new

Before MLK was born, a famous female black activist named Ida B. Wells-Barnett, who tirelessly fought lynching of AAs in the 1800s and turn of the century 1900s, decided to become involved in the women's Suffragan movement.

Mineral Man had posted an interesting perspective on what he had experienced 50 years ago and I posted a little history lesson of the 50+ years before that -

Perhaps one of Wells-Barnett's most important stands occurred at the March 3, 1913, National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) parade in the nation's capital. NAWSA was the national umbrella organization for state suffrage affiliates. Its history dated to 1890 when the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association merged their forces and resources. The primary goal was to enfranchise women. But, NAWSA did not always embrace all women. The southern white women encouraged to seek membership in NAWSA adhered to the same white supremacy ideology that their men championed. Dependence on southerners for the passage of full suffrage rights for women muffled any opposition that NAWSA might have harbored to the usurpation of the social, economic, and political rights that blacks gained during the Reconstruction years. NAWSA refused to publicly denounce racial segregation, adopted a policy of expediency, and accepted Jim Crow within its own ranks. This left the door open for state affiliates to discriminate against black women. But Illinois suffragists had always embraced African-American women like Wells-Barnett and encouraged their participation in the state movement. The Women's State Central Committee, for example, utilized Wells-Barnett's lecturing skills and enlisted her aid in canvassing the state to encourage women to organize and develop political knowledge.

Despite the progressive attitude of white female Illinois suffragists, they refused to support her in the historic suffrage march in Washington. Carrying banners representing almost every state in the Union, thousands of parade marchers underscored the demand for universal female enfranchisement. Wells-Barnett was one of sixty-five enthusiastic delegates from Illinois and one of many black women who participated in the march. But the African-American women were instructed to gather as one unit at the end of the procession because the NAWSA forbade the integration of state affiliates in the march. Wells-Barnett refused to comply with the NAWSA demand and instead lined up with her state contingent. Grace Wilbur Trout, president of the Illinois Equal Suffrage Association and chairperson of the group, initially sanctioned the integrated group. But after meeting with a NAWSA official, she told the delegation that Wells-Barnett could not march with the state contingent. Further, if they failed to follow the instructions set forth by the NAWSA, the entire delegation would be denied participation in the march.

Angry at the blatant disregard for her rights as a woman and as an Illinois resident, Wells-Barnett refused to comply. It was time to confront racism within the suffrage movement. Southern women, she argued, had evaded the issues of race, and the NAWSA and its state affiliates had allowed it. She wanted the Illinois group to show the nation that it was progressive enough to stand against NAWSA's hypocrisy of oppressing women because of their race while embracing the idea of equality for all women at the ballot box. Her pleas, however, fell on deaf ears. So did the pleas of two white colleagues, Belle Squire and Virginia Brooks.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319630.html


Basically we see history repeating itself some 100 years later where "expediency" to achieve one group's agenda is done at the expense of the AA agenda, as often happens to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #31)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 10:55 PM

32. Seems each generation has to relearn the lessons. I know

of Ida --read some of her work in my Women's Studies classes but good review--Thank you for the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 02:17 AM

40. Amazing post.

All the same themes, too. Incredible how history keeps repeating itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 09:11 AM

47. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 11:59 AM

49. Replying to my own post but as a side note

The HBO film "Iron Jawed Angels" actually depicted the above historical incident and the interaction of Ida with the women who were organizing the march. During the actual parade scene, there is a brief blip showing how Ida, who had refused to march at the rear, was standing in the crowd along the route and smoothly walked out to the marchers and joined the middle group of marchers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #19)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 09:13 AM

48. That MLK quote is spot on. Worthy of an OP. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Sun Aug 9, 2015, 08:26 PM

22. LOL

let's see what happens if we call POC some "mean names"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Original post)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 03:04 AM

41. Actually, "Twitchy" is right wing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 03:16 AM

42. Thanks for letting me know that

I was suspicious by the tone of the post.

I think the tweets regarding annoyance with people chanting "All Lives Matter" still might be valid, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #42)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 03:18 AM

43. I actually just found out about it a bit over a month ago myself. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 10, 2015, 03:31 AM

45. I'm still confused by CounterPunch

Mainly because I know someone that recently published an article there, and I don't want to think of him as some sort of cover querfront or unknowing patsy of the rightwing. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread