HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » intheflow » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Springfield
Home country: Planet Earth
Member since: Mon Aug 9, 2004, 01:39 PM
Number of posts: 27,145

About Me

Angry and tired. And tired of being angry. Still in The Struggle.

Journal Archives

White ally here asking for an opinion on the BLM/Sanders protests.

Really, asking for opinions, insights, reflections, or whatever you have to say on the matter. You can't see color on DU unless someone self-identifies, but I'd guess the majority of people in this forum are black Americans. Since I can't see a poster's color, I want to try to hear what some DUers of color think about the protest in Seattle more clearly than sifting through the majority of white voices on DU. I understand your opinions/thoughts/insights are your own, you don't speak for your whole race any more than I speak for mine. But here are my questions; answer what you want, any or all of them.

  • Why do you think protesters targeting Sanders and not Clinton or any Republican?

  • Is there a central organizing force behind the BLM movement, or are chapters (for lack of a better word) being formed locally and acting independently under the rubric of BLM because it's a nationally recognized phrase/movement? I ask this because I've read more than once that the "real" BLM organizers don't support protesting Sanders, but I can't find any posts from any group claiming to be BLM actually saying this.

  • If these are local movements, are they spontaneous, or are they off-shoots of local racial justice organizations? I think what I'm trying to figure out is, are they being lead by seasoned/trained community organizers or by people/young people new to the struggle? I ask this because I've worked as a community organizer and given Sanders' history of working for fair housing and socialist views, it seems like he should be the frontrunner for people seeking more equity, at least economically - which is such a huge component of the social construction of racism in the US.

  • In your opinion, are these protests primarily unfocused and born out of anger, or do you think the protesters believe one candidate should be held accountable for solving 500 years of socially constructed racism? My apologies for the word "unfocused" in my question, because I know the anger is real, but as one who studies histories, I understand there are movements born out of reactionary anger from societal repression (the Stonewall riots, and of course, the initial BLM organizing around Trayvon Martin's killing) and those born out of intentional planning (Nat Turner, NAACP, and the Black Panthers). So I guess what I'm asking is, do you think there's a targeted strategy behind the protests?

I ask these questions in all sincerity, as a 50-something white woman who has worked in black communities and is well-versed in US racial history, but who is still really freakin' white and privileged day-to-day. The crux is, I'm trying to wrap my head around the historical and contemporary context of what's happening but am probably too deeply mired in my own racist white baggage to have a clue about what's really happening in black communities.

My intention is to listen, because I know that black voices matter as much as black lives, so unless asked a direct question, I will limit my participation in the rest of this thread.

What are you thoughts on all of this, in light of a second Sanders protest today?


Full disclosure: I am a Sanders supporter, but I listened to him in Denver just a few days after Charlestown and walked away feeling cold because I so desperately wanted him to talk about racism, and particularly, the massacre. I think he's the best candidate because he's the only candidate who seems to have a clue what the real economy is like for millions of Americans, but it was a sore disappointment not to hear him say anything at all about Charlestown. He did talk a bit about police profiling and killing young black men, which was at least some acknowledgement of racial reality. But it didn't go deep enough by a long shot.

berniesoblack is not a Hillary operative campaign.

As far as I can see, it was started as a tongue-in-cheek tweet from the black community. I'm an ardent Bernie supporter and I thought a lot of the tweets were really funny. Seriously, you need to stop taking yourself so seriously. Progressives without a sense of humor will not be able to endure the arduous and depressing work on race and class that needs to be done in this country.

Visitors to the garden.

I'm housesitting this week and have been enjoying sitting in the garden in the evenings after work. Brought my long lens with me exactly in the hopes of capturing some of the critters who don't like humans to get too close. These are my three favorite shots.

Bumblebee on a snapdragon

Common whitetail dragonfly

Swallowtail butterfly - In the excitement of the moment of seeing this butterfly land within the reach of my lens, I forgot to check the aperture before I snapped the shot. It was pretty blown out but through the magic of photoshop, I was able to redeem it. I think it looks rather ethereal.

My photo and video from the Bernie Sanders event in Denver tonight.

I got there about two hours early to get a good seat. Ended up eight rows back, center-left.

I got one short video clip of his speech before my camera battery died. So here's Bernie, talking about the decline of the middle class wages despite increased worker productivity.

So freaking inspiring to hear a political candidate talk about real issues affecting real people! He ranged from gender wage equity, to reinstating Glass-Steagal, to explaining the TPP (in easy-to-understand language), to the climate denial all around us - going so far in praising Pope's encyclical on climate as to refer to Francis as "a great man of God." Really a remarkable event.

That's Dorothy Pitman Hughes with Steinem, not Angela Davis.

Lots of people make that mistake, including the NY Post editorial screen capture you included in your OP.


Here's the original photo with proper attribution from the Smith College archives: http://www.smith.edu/libraries/libs/ssc/agents/steinemhughes.html

Here's a little write-up on the recreated photo in 2014:

Edited to add: "We are women. We are still fighting after all these years." But black women are still fighting to just be recognized, apparently.

Well, Archae, that's your uninformed opinion.

The Internet is only as good as your ability to differentiate reliable sources from unreliable sources, and opinion from fact. Since no one seems to be teaching critical thinking in public schools any more, the library is one of the last places where people of all ages can still learn those skills. Meanwhile, your comment also assumes everyone can afford to access the internet, which simply isn't true except where anyone can use a computer for free - at the library. People who work from home are using public libraries as a workspace away from their kitchen table, people who travel for business know they can get free wifi and a plug at almost any public library in any town they have to travel to. People who homeschool get a lot of their materials through public libraries; hell, even public school teachers get books for their classes in this era where school libraries have been eliminated from school funding. Libraries provide public meeting spaces for anyone who needs it, including the people of Ferguson, and Hurricane Sandy survivors.

But you know, you're an expert, since you probably haven't set foot in a library for decades. So never mind.

Question about enlarging digital photographs.

So... I have a couple photos I want to enlarge. Really enlarge. To 30" x 40". Trying to figure out pixels per square inch is making me crazy. Online sources are both helpful and confusing. For instance, one says you can't use photoshop to enlarge pictures but you can use it to downscale photos. It also says 72 ppi will be pixelated if blown up. What I've shot comes up as 72 ppi with an image size of 48" x 32".

My questions are:

If I downsize the image to 30x40 at 72ppi, will it be all pixelated?
Can I change the the ppi to 300 and then downsize it to 30x40? Will that be pixelated, too?
If both of these lead to gross pixelation, what's a gal to do that wants her own images up in her living room?

I'm using Photoshop Elements, if that has anything to do with anything.

This whole question makes me flash back to doing word problems in math. Please help!!
Go to Page: 1