General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobert Reich on the Netroots Nation event
Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)
From his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich?fref=nf
"The main event at the Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix, Arizona last weekend was a “Presidential Town Hall” featuring one-on-one discussions between journalist and undocumented American Jose Antonio Vargas and presidential candidates Governor Martin O’Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders. It was upstaged by #?BlackLivesMatter activists who demanded to be heard.
It’s impossible to overcome widening economic inequality without also dealing with the legacy of racial inequality, and impossible to overcome racial inequality without also reversing widening inequality. They are not the same but they are intimately related. Racial inequalities are baked into our political and economic system. Police brutality against black men and women, mass incarceration disproportionately of blacks and Latinos, housing discrimination that has resulted in racial apartheid across the nation, and voter suppression in the forms of gerrymandered districts, voter identification requirements, purges of names from voter registration lists, and understaffed voting stations in black neighborhoods – all reveal deep structures of discrimination that undermine economic inequality. Black lives matter.
But it would be a terrible mistake for the progressive movement to split into a “Black lives matter” movement and an “economic justice” movement. This would only play into the hands of the right. For decades Republicans have exploited the economic frustrations of the white working and middle class to drive a wedge between races, channeling those frustrations into bigotry and resentment. In short, the Republican strategy has been to divide-and-conquer. They want to prevent the majority of Americans – poor, working class, and middle-class, blacks, Latinos, and whites -- from uniting in common cause against the moneyed interests. We must not let them. "
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
But it would be a terrible mistake for the progressive movement to split into a “Black lives matter” movement and an “economic justice” movement. This would only play into the hands of the right. For decades Republicans have exploited the economic frustrations of the white working and middle class to drive a wedge between races, channeling those frustrations into bigotry and resentment. In short, the Republican strategy has been to divide-and-conquer. They want to prevent the majority of Americans – poor, working class, and middle-class, blacks, Latinos, and whites -- from uniting in common cause against the moneyed interests. We must not let them.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Besides, it would behoove ALL Democratic candidatyes and their campaigns to stop casting aspersions on the other candidates' commitment to the lives of POC.
To do so is to cause extra stress for people who already feel threatened and wondering if there is anyone hearing them. PoC deserve to know that ALL Democrats have their back.
ALL Democrats agree on matters of women, LGBT, and PoC. ALL. That is a winning ticket, and we must not allow ourselves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)what if there is a dramatic difference between where candidates have stood vis-a-vis the betterment of PoC? If it were true, shouldn't that be a legitimate point in educating Democratic voters?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I know that before the BLM controversy broke, there was some bickering over Mrs. Clinton's belated support of LGBT rights. Some were arguing that this somehow disqualifies her.
In my opinion, what matters is not the moment Mrs. Clinton came out in support of gay marriage, but the way she did it. She is very outspoken in her support. Even more outspoken than Mr. Sanders (which is to be expected, since new converts always have a tendency to want to demonstrate their newfound beliefs at every turn).
What matters now is not where candidates have stood 50 years ago, or ten years ago, or even two years ago. What matters is where do we want to stand a year from now. Because PoC are feeling as if they are drowning, caught between lone wolves and a murderously biased police corps.
I'm assuming that most of the BLM protesters do not need to be educated. Even if they have no college degree, they know more about being a PoC than I ever will learn about it. They can educate me. The best and brightest among them may even be able to educate Mr. Sanders, who thank God is never afraid to learn something.
What needs to be done now is to show a united front. Who-ever gets the nomination, that candidate will commit himself / herself to act (with congress and the rest of society) to get us to where we want to be a in a year's time.
To cast aspersions about other candidates, as this point, is an almost cynical exploitation of fears. And it can only help to exacerbate the feeling of being alone and uncared for: if the other candidate wins, I'm screwed.
GLBT are now for the first time in a position where they can vote in the primaries and know that ANY candidate will have their backs. I cannot tell you how much of an elation that is. And I sure hope and pray that PoC will get to feel that elation too. After all: does any candidate really disagree with the other candidates on the need to address the plight of PoC?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)to the discussion. I don't fully agree with you but I do not question your sincerity. If we had more people exhibiting your calmness at a time of high tension, we'd be better off.
The OP is about the need to avoid a wedge in different components of the progressive movement, lest the RW win. I fully support that point. I stand in unreserved solidarity with both BLM and the economic equality movement.
Your point, if I may paraphrase, that we should first fall in love but then after the nomination fall in line is also well taken. Solidarity behind a nominee is crucial in winning close elections. But the process of choosing a nominee is traditionally a fractious process in open cycles. The only exception I can think of is the 2000 cycle, when race was a major theme and yet to the credit of Bradley and Gore, it did not become divisive. This cycle, unfortunately, is no exception in that regard.
If we choose candidates without educating ourselves about their records, their trustworthiness and whether they are likely to keep their promises, then I believe we have failed in our duty as citizens. Democratic candidates sometimes say one thing and then act another way when elected. Tragically, some Democratic candidates have even exploited race in an ugly way for political advantage, imo. I believe any of that is fair game. It is not conducive to a peaceful nominating process. I wish all of this could be done dispassionately, but that has not been my experience since I became politically aware in 1968.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)1968... My mother had yet to reach puberty at that time.
Thank you for all your kind words. But if I may stress my disagreement with what seems to be your argument: there is no equation between negative campaigning and passionate campaigning.
By all means, campaign with vigor. Discuss records if you want to. Let passions run high.
But just don't do so in a way that casts doubt over present-day commitment. A united party standing rock-solid with a minority seems a better way to consolidate votes than bombarding said minority with messages that both candidates have some questions to answer about their commitment to the minority's cause.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)As far as DU is concerned, I'm not sure there is a way to be effective right now because it has gotten so ugly, imo. In fact it has become so ugly that I feel a need to get away from DU indefinitely.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I've been mulling the idea of writing an open letter of apology to someone I had a disagreement with (on DU) over the relation between economic justice and race justice. That was before I understood what I understand now, and before the BLM controversy. I might just write it now, and see how far it goes. If it helps to soften just one person's view on the divide, I'll call my efforts successful.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)economic issues are intrinsically tied to racism.
Yes. Rich people like Donald Trump can be racists. (His remarks about Mexicans. Whew!)
And yes. Black people, even if rich, suffer from racism even when they shop in expensive stores or eat in expensive restaurants. Racism appears to be unaware of economics.
But it isn't. Most racists view anyone with dark skin as "poor," "lazy" and suspicious and getting more than he or she deserves. Please. That is not my opinion. But as a white person, that is what racists think and that is what they generally feel free to express to me as a white person that they might not openly express to a Black person. Consider the Republican code talk about welfare recipients (although most are really white). The image that underlies racism is an economic one, inaccurate and wrong, yes, but economic. From another viewpoint, I would say that economics is the excuse for racism.
(Similarly, the excuse for irrational anti-Jewish feelings is also stated as an economic one: "They're rich and they take what isn't theirs." Again not what I think or say but what I have heard not just in America but also and most importantly in Europe. Whether the economic stereotypes are really the reason or whether it is code for "They have a different culture," I am unsure, but when you are white, haters let you know how they justify their hate, and that is what I have heard. No one ever says that Jews are wrong because of their religious beliefs or that Blacks are less for any reason other than that they are "lazy and poor." And "you know." Not to me anyway. This is again basically and economic view that Jewish lives are not in economic terms worth what Jewish people are falsely believed to have. It is based of course on the completely false view that Jewish people are rich. And the stereotype of Black people is that they are poor. Neither of these stereotypes is accurate, but they are common among racists.)
Making college free or at least easily affordable for all might not instantly change a racist into a progressive. Having good early child-care available at little or no cost for every child in America would not turn off racism right away either. Raising the minimum wage and making sure every person in America has good health care won't either. More jobs, less incarceration, more rehabilitation, more school and community integration won't work like magic charms either. More ability of Black people to live where they want and not in unofficially segregated housing. That would help so much. A law that said that low income housing had to be integrated into all neighborhoods. That would help. None of these policies would completely get rid of racism.
(Racism in our police forces can be ended by requiring that police departments make public and report to special independent commissions that investigate racism and the use of excessive force in law enforcement and that the FBI investigate independently every accusation of racism or excessive force by any police officer in the country. That is an expensive proposition, but it needs to be done at least until our law enforcement gets racism and the use of excessive force under control. Just the threat of investigations would probably stop a lot of the racism and excessive force.)
But all of these things can remove from the thoughts and discussion about race the edge of the economic preconceptions that feed and foster racism and that cause the frustration that moves white people to act out on their racist feelings.
I have asked many DUers to suggest ways other than economic change that we can move the hearts and minds of racists and change our fundamentally racist society into something that accepts individuals for who they are and how they live, but I haven't really gotten any.
My father who was a minister in both the North and South (moved around by his church back in the day) and struggled with this issue. Why are people racists? What is so dark and evil in their hearts and souls?
Back then, his question was, how can white people in the South who at that time were raised by Black women who loved them as much as their birth mothers harbor so much contempt and hate for people just based on skin color? How do you change those deep-seated and irrational attitudes?
It's a mystery. There is no rhyme nor reason for it.
Other than the view that in order to justify the slavery practiced by their ancestors and the exploitation of Black people in their own society, they had to create the myth that Black people were worth less than they were. That is the only one I have been able to figure out. And that view is based on the economic valuation of one human being as worth less, intrinsically worth less than another. I don't hold that view, but it is the only one that I can figure out upon which racists base their racism. If anyone has any other explanation, I would like to know it.
So racism is basically economics. The racist views people who have different skin colors or cultures than their own as worth less in terms not just of money but in terms of human value. That is essentially an economic formulation. That is essentially placing a value on one life versus another based on the color of the skin. And I think that may be what underlies racism. Please do respond to me if you think I am wrong. Because I am exploring this theory and would appreciate feedback.
So, I ask you. Could it be that the fundamental rationalization of racists is there idea that their white life is somehow economically of higher value than those of Black people?
Until someone can tell me a better way to end racism than through economics, I'm going to go with economic equality. It certainly won't solve the problem by itself, but what tools do we have? What else can we do?
We've been trying to change hearts and minds since the 1960s and way before, and we have not made sufficient progress although we have made some.
Economic issues DO play a role in racism. That's my view as a white person. White people who want to feel superior, who have such a low opinion of themselves that they use race to make themselves feel superior, are the problem. I think that economic solutions will not change the whole equation, but certainly will change one element of the equation.
Anyway, I promised myself I would not get into any more discussions about race on DU because they always end up badly. But I'm here again. I do want to say that I am posting this as a means of dialogue and discussion and I apologize deeply if anything I have said offends any person of good character. If it offends racists, so be it. But I do not post it in order to tell other people what they should think or to make others feel bad. I post it to develop and ongoing dialogue that is very important and that should not end in our giving up on trying to communicate with each other.
If you disagree with me, please view my post as a sort of question to you. If my theory is wrong, then how do you explain racism?
psychmommy
(1,739 posts)Our issues are important. Our sons and daughters literally have targets on their backs. Our lives are in danger, and you want to talk about poverty. This is a big tent and all of our issues should be heard. If poverty is dealt with, that could solve a lot of problems but it still doesn't solve the problems of mass incarceration(aka:slave labor) and police brutality and outright murder. Bernie has some great points and I do believe that of any candidates he would be the one to work with us. He addressed those protesters poorly and kind of shelved the issue. but, if you want our votes and you do-put in a little effort. Show us you care. Don't take our votes for granted. People are dying out here-we are just not that easy anymore.
*** Disclaimer:I took it upon myself to speak for my people, all of which may not agree. But, many do. #blacklivesmatter-we are not a side issue that you can put on the back burner.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What would you do to stop the mass incarceration which does amount to slave labor and the police brutality?
I have made the suggestion of a special regulatory agency in the federal government under the auspices of the Justice Department that would require a report of and independently investigate every claim of police use of excessive force whether it ended in death of a subject or not.
As for mass incarceration, there are various crimes at issue here.
First, there are nonviolent drug offenses. Clearly we need a national program for drug rehabilitation that works better than what we have. I don't know how it would work. We have lots of drug counseling and 12-step programs, but we need much more. In the long term, I think that better pre-school education that stresses helping children develop the strength to resist impulses if it could be done in a non-repressive, healthy way would be good. And, by the way, I do not think that drug abuse is necessarily more prevalent in Black communities than in other communities. I suspect that the policing of the streets in Black areas is more vigilant on this issue. I live in a Hispanic area, and we have a gang injunction that makes arrests far more likely. We need some solution other than gang injunctions. We don't want gang violence, but we don't want our children to be treated as suspects just because of their color or ethnicity.
Also, I visited juvenile centers at one point in my life -- fairly regularly. We need to completely upend and redo our juvenile justice and incarceration system. Teenagers are still children. They often don't understand what their incarceration means. I believe that California finally did away with the solitary confinement of kids (yes the SHU), but let's face it we don't know how to deal with children who do illegal things. We don't have the research, the information, to work with them on alternative behavior, and they often commit "crimes" on impulse because they don't understand their choices. (And what is more, if rich bankers can commit fraud on our entire financial system and they don't go to jail, why are we jailing a 15-year-old for stealing an I-Pad that other kids have and his parents can't afford. I'm not approving of stealing I-Pads. I'm looking for alternative ways to deal with young people who commit crimes.
Also, why not have committees of black representatives from the community -- pastors, teachers, etc. -- who work with judges, prosecutors, public defenders and social workers to try to find out why so many black people especially black men get arrested. Is the rate of criminal activity really higher in the Black community? Are economic factors like high unemployment playing a part? Or are the police focusing on Black communities? Is there actually just as much crime in white communities and is it overlooked? What are the real numbers on this?
And then, why don't we hire more Black police officers? Especially in Black communities? And more Hispanic officers in Hispanic communities? I'm not suggesting that officers be assigned according to their race. I'm suggested wiser hiring practices for all communities.
Do you have any concrete ideas like these? Because it is not enough to say Black Lives Matter. We have to think of discrete actions we could take personally and at a political level to make sure that Black lives really do matter as they should.
We need concrete proposals. What do you see in your community, in your city, in your state and in the nation that can be done to respond to this problem.
merrily
(45,251 posts)children is what has been on my mind all along.
I think all candidates and even the right now agree on the ludicrous amount of incarceration. I hope that they will also agree that for profit prisons are not the answer. Judges were bribed to send teens to prison.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)OK, I read you normally and do not think you are racist, BUT
That statement was VERY tone deaf.
Ta-nhesi Coates may write a lot about Race, but he also understands economics. When you make a statement that "black people find it hard to understand" you are coming off as saying a very polite version of "those (racial expletives) just do not understand" which was of course, the meme used to justify everything from slavery to jim crow. The worst thing you can tell black people is that they do not understand the problems they deal with. If you think Blacks and Browns do not understand that bankers and their toadies are an enemy, you have not listened to them.
Black people and others of color understand that the economic system is rigged. They know what "last hired, first fired" means, since they invented the phrase. They understand it better than the majority, because the rich used to feel that they had to throw dogbones to the majority, and to stroke their racial hatred so that the whites did not pay attention to the fact that the rich were picking their pockets. Bread and Circuses, the classic glue of Empire. Now however, the rich are beginning to treat good ol Joe Sixpack the way they used to treat Blacks and Browns, because the governments of the BRICS are saying "look, we have an obedient, low wage replacement for your middle class that will buy enough of your stuff to fund the financing hustle you do on wall street!" Of course, the rich, being stupid, are falling for that hook line and sinker; and are eagerly shoveling the American middle class into the furnace in the hopes of harvesting billions. But what angers so many of these "angry white working class" types that post here is that they completely ignored the left when they were screaming at the top of their lungs "Look you idiots, minorities are the appetizer, but YOU are the main course, and your children will be dessert!"
Yes, racism is part of economics, but economics is part of many other things, the raw lust for dominance being among them. Part of the reason Capitalism does the damage it does is because it tells people that everything, absolutely everything, can be boiled down to dollars and sense. For that matter, Communism, with it "all power is Capital" belief, tries to reduce everything down to a formula, which is why even Putin does not revive it. In other words, there are forces at work darker than just money, but the raw, human desire to make one group the alpha, and to beat on the betas, that has been with us ever since we were monkeys in the trees. Oh yes, the economics have to be attacked, but when even the President of the United States gets turds thrown at him by both the GOP and many in the Democrats, you do not have the right to deny the racism issue. Racism is based on primal fear and hate, which is why , sory to say, a lot of the self-appointed progressives cannot deal with it, because they want everything to be the sort of logical, gentrified discussion had over lattes while listening to NPR.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What shall we do about it? Just telling white people to be tolerant and to care is not going to solve the problem.
What are your specific proposals?
What policies do you want, say, a Bernie Sanders who supported Black rights and then even Jesse Jackson as the candidate for president in 1988, to do to respond to the terrible attacks on Black people now.
As for your economic analysis about how the entire middle class in America is being brought down just as Black people were treated for centuries, I agree.
And I must say the same thing has happened in the professions. We got NAFTA, and factories were closed. Working class people lost their jobs and dropped out of the middle class. Detroit has been decimated. They have moved on to teachers. Charter schools are a means to destroy teacher training, teachers' professional status and unions. Next they will work on doctors. Sure. They study for many, many years and have to pass tests that insure that they are very, very intelligent and hard-working, but hey, we can't afford to pay their salaries. Never mind that they graduate with a ton of debt (unless their families were rich) and delay their earning years for a long time, let's pitch them out of the middle class too.
And so it is going. And of course this is a very difficult time for everyone in the middle class and people of color, Black people but also especially Hispanics are the first scapegoats for the anger the historical facts engender.
So this is the time for whites and Blacks to work together to right the economic structure of our country. Blacks do have other problems that are not specifically economic. A really deep study of the reasons for the higher arrest and conviction rates among Blacks is needed.
And we need complete reform of our criminal justice system. Personally, I think Bernie, a former mayor is best qualified to do that reform. O'Malley also has some good ideas about it. Hillary has been a pick 'em up and jail 'em person in the past. Maybe she will evolve on that issue now that it is a popular idea.
But Bernie Sanders has always favored justice for Black people. I think that Black advocates need to present him with proposals for what they want done and organize to make sure he does it. I think he is a person who can be worked with. That is one of the reasons I support him.
I must say I worked for quite a number of years for a homeless project that primarily served black homeless men, and have also visited juvenile detention centers fairly frequently. That is my personal experience with your concerns.
I will say that we need programs that reintegrate people especially black men into mainstream society when they leave prison. Our halfway houses and programs are not doing the job. And we need to foster more community service organizations and private as well as government money focused on those issues. That is what comes to my mind first.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)can't figure out something that you figured out.
it is racism.
you posted it, it's racism.
you don't even see it. you think it's this obscure thing that's only related to economics.
but the premise of your screed is that black folks can't understand what you know. you just put it out there that they simply can't not because they are more likely to be poor, but because they are black.
enjoy your stay --on second thought, don't.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)economic issues are intrinsically tied to racism." Slow your roll, lady. That's really not true at all, and a really insensitive thing to post.
Racism is nearly the entire basis for our economic system. It's the struts that hold the rest of it in place. Our country was founded on the riches of Black slavery and has barely relented in profiting in racism in all the years since.
I would lay a firm bet that nearly every Black person who lives in the US knows exactly how much racism costs them economically.
If we move on racist policies, and eliminate conditions that foster racism, that will actually go a long way toward making economic reform, as well as helping to eliminate structural racism, which would be a moral good in its own right.
Racism is the underlying factor in US economics. In our case, class and racism are so intertwined, they are the entire foundation of modern capitalism.
We may never get rid of the haters, but putting legal structures in place to eliminate bias and racist treatment and then rigorously enforcing them would make hatred less politically and economically worthwhile. Our economics are basically racism given a power structure to blossom in.
"Economic equality" isn't a race-neutral concept, and it needs to encompass reforms that eliminate the basis for that inequality too. Changing the minds of white people isn't the problem. It's making racism less of a threat to Black people.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)One of them sold marijuana to an undercover officer for a relatively small amount of money. I asked her why she thought he did that. She said, "He didn't have any money."
He had been released from serving a short term for a previous offense and couldn't get a job. It isn't just Black people who get sentenced to jail for minor offenses, nonviolent offenses. And very often the reason for the offense is economic -- the inability to get a job, the desperate need to make money.
You stated the issue well: making racism less of a threat to Black people.
But what actions, what policy changes, are you proposing to change that ugly reality?
And why do you think, Obama has not put them in place and acted on them?
Rodney King was a long time ago. It appears that things have not improved. They have worsened. And we have had two Democratic presidencies since that time: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
If economic justice is not the key, then what is the key to changing this situation? How would you propose to bring the social justice that is needed?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Reducing suspensions in K-12, banning the box--all three of these reforms have happened in CA since 2010.
All three with the specific purpose of reducing racial bias in the justice system.
Returning voting rights to felons after serving time.
Reinstating the VRA. Giving teeth to Roe, since cuts to family planning hit women of color the worst. Enact reforms to have independent investigation of harm and deaths at the hands of LEO. Body cams.
All have been discussed here at DU, and should not be unknown to a progressive.
Job status didn't help Sandra Bland. She had a degree and was on her way to her dream job. It didn't help Charles Belk, who was arrested and made to sit out on the curb, and had his arrest record put online, even though he did nothing wrong, and he had a Hollywood career.
Mike Brown was starting community college in the fall. Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis were children. Murdered by white men with too easy access to guns. Did they just need jobs too?
brush
(53,957 posts)understand what is obvious to white progressives?
Change this condescending, whitesplaining title now if you want people to read your post.
I can't believe you would write such foolishness.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)And white people do?
What the ever loving fuck are you smoking?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)See how that works? Unbelievably broad-brushed assertion in your post and classic whitesplaining.
Beyond that,your premise ignores a lot of other factors by reducing the issue to simply one of economics.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)If BLM is seen as a loud, out of control group more intent on shouting than working with their friends to solve problems, we all lose. I believe Fox News loved the BLM shutting down the two candidates most aligned with the goals of BLM. BLM blew it this time. Let's hope they do not continue as a weapon of the rich to divide us. Their goals are just, and we support them, but to be most effective they must not be trivialized as noise makers shooting down their own chances of success.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Whether we're talking race vs economic movements, or parties - tptb are all about dividing the people and plundering the country. They will use any and all means to divide - the people just have to wise up and stick together.
lark
(23,182 posts)Morning Joe is already at it, "self-avowed long time socialist" Bernie, etc. etc.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)They are supported by friends of AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNISTS who tried to kill off democratic socialists like Trotsky in that day... We are once again faced by the real battle of the 1% vs. the 99%!
Though we have them trying to divide and conquer us, they also try to "unify" and conquer different groups so that the good group gets labeled with the reputation of the bad group. They will be exposed as the truth speaks to more people!
lark
(23,182 posts)however, many in the masses do and will continue to have a problem with him. Unfortunately, too many of them know nothing about John Birchers, so not generally scary. MSM demonized socialism during the cold war with Russia and China and it's still scary to many. I wish Bernie had converted to just Democrat, take away the meme - he's still a socialist (OMG tone)!
I just hope he can break thru the scum and get people to listen to what he's saying. What he's saying is good, really, really, good for 99% of us and hope he can get the old white conservatives to open their ears and hearts and vote in their own best intersets for a change.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which promoted and pushed that meme for so long in his propaganda forum.
People are starting to see through crap, and realize that places like Sweden represent the kind of nation and wealth divide that we want and will want a system more like theirs to bring it to them as this article notes that they've been polled to want, without knowing what that they are being polled on a socialist outcome. We really ideally aspire to a society with a wealth breakdown of socialist country Sweden.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/09/americans_have_no_idea_how_bad_inequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html
And if they did, they wouldn’t want European-style solutions.
...
This is the second high-profile paper in which Norton has argued that Americans have a strikingly European notion of economic fairness. In 2011, he published a study with Duke University professor Dan Ariely that asked Americans how they believed wealth should be split up through society. It included two experiments. In the first, participants were shown three unlabeled pie charts meant to depict possible wealth distributions: one that was totally equal; one based on Sweden’s income distribution, which is highly egalitarian; and one based on the U.S. wealth distribution, which is wildly skewed toward the rich. (They used Swedish income data as a model, rather than wealth, to strike a “clearer contrast” with the United States.)* Then, the subjects were told to pick where they would like to live, assuming they would be randomly assigned to a spot on the economic ladder. With their imaginary fate up to chance, 92 percent of Americans opted for Sweden’s pie chart over the United States.
In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.
calimary
(81,558 posts)They WILL be scared by the "he's an a-VOWED SO-cialist..." I've already heard it, too. That meme is already off and running.
If anyone doubts me, just remember some of those ridiculous teabagger protest signs we have seen since 2010. The ones that screech about "SO-cialism!!!!" and then warn that nobody better touch their Medicare. They don't even understand what it is they're talking about or demanding or protesting or railing against. But they HAVE been systematically and strategically force-fed a hatred of Communism and Socialism as concepts - since forever. I can remember, personally, how - in kindergarten and more in first grade and onward, in my Catholic school, during open reading in history class. The propaganda had already started - "the COMMMunists! (were doing this)" and "The COMMMMMunists!!! were doing that" and all kinds of crap. "They were taking people hostage and poking chopsticks down deep into little children's ears to punish them!" I swear to God. "THE COMMMMMMMMunists!!!!!" Late '50s.
Well, that was when I was a little kid, in the Midwest, before we moved out to California. Early '60s. Then in a new school in California - BANG! there it was again. "The COMMMMMMMunists!!!!!" And we were having air raid drills at the time, too, every Friday morning. And we were taught to be scared that Fidel Castro was gonna boat himself over to the US mainland and take us over and make us - I dunno - eat rice all the time or something? Who even knew? But the hysteria was there. Definitely. it was so strong it made an impression on me as a little kid. Made me wonder why they were on this boogie man and pushing it so hard. It actually made me start questioning what I was being taught. Just like when the priest came over from the church across the street to pontificate to us in 5th grade about family life and all - and I just found myself sitting there wondering how the heck he could be dictating this stuff when he never married, never had a wife, never had children, never had a family to support, etc.
And if I was fed that in the late 50s and early 60s, in two very different states, you better believe there are MILLIONS more of Americans like that who got fed the same thing, and too many of them never questioned then, and certainly aren't questioning it now.
It's the same as what the bad guys have done to the word "Liberal." The word "COMMMMMMunism" has been totally perverted. Might as well be a swear word. And "COMMMMMunism!" and "SOOOOOOOOcialism!" were treated as two peas in a pod. Hell, george bush the 1st used to give speeches where, every time he spoke the WORD "Liberal," he did it with a verbal AND visual sneer - curled his damn lip when he uttered the very WORD. As though there were some bad smell attached to it. It's been PROGRAMMING. BRAINWASHING. FOR DECADES. Certainly was going on way before I can remember - through the '30s and '40s, when our parents were in school and being propagandized about the evil "Russian bear" and the COMMIES who were gonna overrun us at any moment and take our new cars and fancy new kitchen appliances away. And most people just swallowed it whole.
The whole concept of "socialist" has been thoroughly trashed, peed on and crapped on. Just as what's been done to the word "liberal". And unfortunately, Bernie Sanders is securely in the cross-hairs. I, too, have heard it from ted cruz and others of his ilk ALREADY. "He's an a-VOWed SO-cialist..." They like that word "avowed," too. Kinda sexes it up and gives it added "oomph." So they'll pair it with the word "socialist" and off to the races they go.
Let me just say - it's tremendously stupid and unfair. It's unfair to the whole notion of socialism or communism. The whole idea of spreading things around so the playing field is level, and SHARING THE WEALTH FOR THE SAKE OF THE COMMONS, for the sake of THE GREATER GOOD (forcibly, by government intervention, if necessary) has been crapped on. It's all been tied up. Rather neatly, too. They've done a VERY good and thorough and effective job on this, over the decades. They do have most of America brainwashed about this. So most of the low-info voters out there will only need to hear "a-VOWED SO-cialist" a few times and they're GONE. It's unfair and stupid. Because it's about redistribution of wealth - so that there aren't any obscenely rich, and conversely that there aren't any obscenely poor, either.
But Teabag America won't think that way and they sure won't hear it, either. They'll just see it as the Big Gummnnt stomping into their lives and kitchens and taking their stuff (and their money) away so that some vague, unidentified "lazy moocher" over there somewhere can take what YOU have without working for it. THAT'S the framing that's been relentlessly framed and pushed and planted and cultivated - for DECADES. Government intrusion into our private lives and all that (which ironically doesn't apply if a woman's reproductive system is involved. THAT kind of government intrusion into our private lives is somehow just fine!). And it works. It's already worked! And it's still working to this day. And all those years of brainwashing and very systematic and strategic propagandizing is gonna work against Bernie Sanders.
It's not fair and it's not accurate. Not one bit! And it does a great disservice to the message of people like Bernie Sanders. It does a great disservice to objective learning about political and societal systems with none of the bugaboo bad-guy emotional scare-tactics crap layered onto it - for DECADES. It's produced an America where capitalism is a god, and socialism is the devil, and one doesn't even have to think about it or reason it out anymore. Just don't even think about it. Cut 'n' dried. Good vs evil. One OR the other. You're with us or you're ag'in us. Black or white. Either/Or. Nothing in between. No shades of gray. Simplistic monochromatic thinking. Nuance is too hard, anyway (and it's probably just for sissies and all them highfalutin' elitist book-learnin' and "inty-leck-tual" types who are just un-American anyway). Just get down on your knees and worship the god of capitalism and think no more about it! Especially with hate radio on there for the last 25 years or so - telling America "you don't even have to think! I'LL do the thinking FOR you!" (I heard limbaugh actually say those words on the radio.) It's already DONE. And there are too many non-thinking people who are still scared, still gonna fall for it, and still gonna buy into it.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)this eternal truth. 
Little Star
(17,055 posts)If you don't have your life, economic movements are useless to you. 
jwirr
(39,215 posts)connected.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Don't you remember the March on Washington was for "Jobs and Freedom"? Not just freedom.
Park of being "free" is having a fair economy that isn't rigged against you. If you're struggling to put food on the table and pay your rent, you're not very likely to have a lot of spare time to exercise civil rights are you? Don't you get that part of being oppressed is being economically oppressed? It is all tied together my friend. We will not solve police violence till we also address systematic economic oppression. Police violence doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Economic movements are the opposite of useless. In fact, most successful social justice movements come as a result of rising economic expectations that allow the oppressed to be able to picture themselves getting their fair share of the pie. The Civil Rights Movement happened during the longest sustained economic expansion in the history of this country. That's no coincidence; in fact it helped to drive it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)shot as a teen for visiting your divorced Dad.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)But I don't think you can fix that problem without fixing the rigged economy that keeps communities of color impoverished. The problem isn't isolated racist cops. It's systemic--and it's tied to an economic model that says poverty is your own fault. That's my opinion.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I get that the economic system is rigged and I bet African Americans get it far better than you or I do. But fixing the economic system alone is not going keep people alive. Racism has to be addressed too. That's all I think they're saying.
Chris Rock takes a selfie every time he is pulled over for driving while black. Try for a minute to imagine yourself scared shitless every time your child leaves your home that he or she might get stopped by a cop. Try to imagine yourself grieving at your loved one's funeral. How good would the economic system have to be to make that okay? How much money could someone hand you to make that all right? How good a scholarship or a job?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)It exists in part because Americans are taught to believe that poor people are worthless. When "people of color" becomes synonymous with "poor people," then people of color are more easily seen as worthless. If you think we can fix "racism" with body cameras and we will never have to address social injustice, you have another think coming.
I have been pulled over by a cop for no reason other than race--more than once.
I have been at a loved one's funeral.
None of that will be fixed by electing Hillary. None of that will be fixed by tearing down Bernie Sanders. None of that will be fixed by body cameras.
It will be fixed by creating social justice in this country. If you think "social justice" = paying someone reparations when their loved ones are killed (which you apparently do because you compare it to money in someone's hand to make up for a lost life), you have an awful lot to learn about social justice.
I might start here: http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/0060528370
merrily
(45,251 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Read sentence #1 in Post 144.
merrily
(45,251 posts)racism. But, there are limits to what legislators can do. Limits to what mortals can do.
You can eliminate laws that discriminate, taking de jure discrimination off the books. However, you cannot eliminate de facto discrimination. You can't wave a magic wand and make people stop being racist or make cops stop shooting, choke holding, etc. You can only prosecute them when you have evidence, and hope the jury does the right thing. But, by then, someone is hurt or dead.
You can pass education bills and jobs bills, etc. that enable people to move into safer places and hopefully have better lives.
Racism is a huge cause of poverty. Maybe you can't legislate away the racism, but you can at least try to pass laws that provide a better path out of poverty.
By all means, movement on both fronts is needed, and keeping people alive is the first priority. But, right now, I honestly don't know of a law that is going to make sure no cop uses a choke hold unnecessarily or no racist brings a gun (or a torch) to an African American or Hispanic church.
appalachiablue
(41,187 posts)people not to fall into the divide trap that benefits the wealthy in his rocking Dallas rally attended by 8,000 yesterday. Next up New Orleans July 26. Summer of Sanders is here! 
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Obama's a prime example.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)It's from his FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich?fref=nf
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Many of us don't do FB regularly so didn't realize your post was his whole comment
Agree with him, too, that we don't need to be divided over the issue of BLM and Economic Justise given that it is a tactic so often used to defeat Dems. Thought he made a good point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the grievance of the other?
Why are we to assume that the long standing civil rights/social justice movement is causing the divide/split?
Isn't it just as true that those pushing/promoting economic primacy onto communities of color, are causing the divide/split?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)damn-it. 
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He suggested that the GOP tries to create and maintain this split, not that either group does. He is just saying that he hope the split does not occur, not that he blames either group for the existence.
I take it how ever that you believe the split already exists and that one of the two groups is responsible.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)just go to DU:Greatest Threads/Trending Threads page.
And, note that it is NOT those talking about race issues/opposing economic primacy, shouting "Divisiveness" or "Wedge Issues" ... in fact, I will donate $100 to the campaign of your choice if you can find a single such thread!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I read the post and article to which you were responding. You telling me you were responding to another thread inside this one?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)is caused by the opinion that one policy/subject isn't being focused on enough (even if the position of the politician is in agreement with those objecting to the lack of priority), then the solution is just to focus on that issue more until people are satisfied.
But that's the problem with some aspects of democracies. Politicians aren't incentivized to address or spend much time on the issues of the people with the least power and population because that's not what wins elections.
I'm a Bernie supporter, so I hope he decides to spend more time on the issues brought up by BLM, because it's needed. I really appreciate his stances and views on other policies because he seems to be the only candidate who has really progressive views on a number of subjects, and so I hope he goes beyond just having the views and incorporates the issues of the less powerful more into his campaign. Honestly, it's not generally considered a winning strategy, but neither is running without corporate support, but I support him for trying to showcase how the system is broken, which you can't do so effectively when utilizing the same system for your own benefit.
BLM is doing what they need to in order to gain political power in our pretty messed up system. You will be ignored unless you can make some noise. We've seen this with other issues before, LGBT is a recent example, where Democratic politicians minimized and even fought against equal rights (including Bill Clinton and even Obama) because it was politically expedient.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But some instead see this as an affront to their candidate so they are attacking the BLM movement.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Raises more than a few eyebrows.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Hillary will be confronted as well.
Of course she wasn't confronted at a Jefferson Jackson conference. The last one I went to the admission was pretty well controlled.
Netroots, of course, is not controlled.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)While Bernie is held to a different standard, even though he has a far better and more consistent record on the matters being discussed.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and in trying to do that, you are dismissing BLM and instead of protecting him you are doing the exact opposite for your candidate.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Don't tell me, 'next week'. She gets a free pass.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)It's going to happen
… maybe not tomorrow or next week, but it will happen. I do not underestimate this movement.
eridani
(51,907 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Hillary's people are the ones yelling the loudest about "how dare Bernie Sanders!"
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
progressoid
(50,009 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And our politics are fucked up, it incentivizes infighting. There is a pecking order in many cases. This leads to factions and prioritizing etc. etc. It makes divide and conquer pretty easy.
If a person's main focus is to have their candidate win, then there are a lot of things that get compromised in our system along the way.
I get why people who want a progressive candidate don't like how this supposedly helps Clinton, heck, I don't like it, but I don't blame BLM, I blame the election system. The way our politics is set up, it encourages infighting to get what you want.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)on DU for activism some saw as an affront to their favorites. I understand what BLM was up to because I have been part of that sort of thing myself. But there are DU members who have been absolute in their condemnation of anyone who heckles, at any time for any reason when it was LGBT activism toward Obama who are now not only favorable toward BLM's action but deriding those who don't approve of it. I find that to be very telling. It's a double standard of sort.
And if we are doing this sort of thing, just last month Obama had an undocumented trans woman ejected from the White House for interrupting him with her message about deportation of trans people. Obama said 'Shame on you' and got the crowd to join in 'you are in my house' he said.
And that's what usually happens when you disrupt for political reasons, it is not met kindly. O'Malley and Sanders gave the activists the mic and the stage. 'Shame on you, you are in my house!' vs 'here's the mic, say what you want to say'.
Did Marty or Bernie eject anyone shouting 'Shame on you'? No, they did not. Was a big great deal made about Obama ejecting the trans woman? No, not really.
Oh well.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the one time a year when folks can come together to interact with their congressfolks in their districts.
With few exceptions I think that protesting should be allowed, particularly protests like this one where they gave the candidates an opportunity to speak, it wasnt just shouting them down.
I haven't seen the instance you are talking about but I think Obama was wrong to not let the trans woman speak just based on what you told me.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not sure that everyone who wants to disrupt is entitled to, or should be allowed to. But, when it is a group that has been so oppressed for so long, just because of how they are born, like members of the GLBT community or African Americans, something has to give. They have to disrupt if anything is to change. JMO.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not sure that anyone is pushing one thing over another or in place of another. I think if a majority of Americans knew of something that government could do to end racism, we'd be out on the streets demanding it be done. That's just my take.
If you know of something, such as longer sentences for excessive violence from law enforcement, de-militarization of police (which many are working on), reduction of prison sentences (ditto) school course, the national guard and observers at polling places, anything, please, please bring those ideas forward.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)But I am just not seeing where the 'either/or' is coming from.
BLM did what they had to do to get the issue on the table.
The candidates responded poorly. As a Bernie supporter I completely agree
But if the ball is in BLM's court, they need to have a concise, practical, achievable set of bullet points as to what policies they demand the candidate(s) to support in exchange for BLM supporting the candidates. Rage and passion are great, but actionable points are what achieve goals.
I would bet that if BLM said "We demand you support This, and This, and This, the answer would be "Of Course".
There is no reason both economic inequality, of which PoC are the main victims *AND* stopping the mass incarceration and killings of PoC are mutually exclusive; indeed the same people and energies can and should address both.
I'm about as white and middle class as you can get and even *I* see that.
Regards
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)creators" and "income inequality is not a concern for the black community."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)those evil PoC are making those whites poor. AKA LBJ's "lowest white man" quote that is the backbone of Republican strategy.
Fight the economic battle, and you gain allies (or at least reduce barriers) in the social justice battle.
Fight the social justice battle, and you gain allies (or at least reduce barriers) in the economic battle. For example, if blacks are having a hard time voting due to racist redistricting/voter ID/being dead, then they can't elect people who would also fight the economic battle.
We either do both at the same time, or we fail on both individually.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)racism to avoid upsetting potential "allies" that are resentful of their very existence and easily propagandized to blame all of their problems on non-whites.
Sorry, but I don't see what's to be gained by ignoring structural racism to court people who never going to acknowledge that it exists.
What you're advocating is that a portion of the electorate keep quiet about problems affecting them so that there will be some sort of net gain through economic justice, but how the fuck can the black community enjoy these hypothetical net economic gains when the system is structured to deny them equitable distribution of said gains and when, in many instances, they don't actually enjoy equal protection under the law, especially from people who are tasked with enforcing it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There is no shutting up if you are doing the both at the same time. Because you're screaming about both.
Pretending we can't walk and chew gum is utterly fucking moronic.
Stop lying. The post is right there. It says to do both. Not to make one wait until after the other.
In fact, it explicitly says that if we wait on either one, we lose on both. How, in your fucked up reading does that mean one has to wait?
Chakab
(1,727 posts)advocating for economic justice. I'll be waiting. The fact is economic justice has always been part and parcel of the Civil Rights Movement in every one of its incarnations.
What the people like you, who were so angry about what happened at NN15, mean when you say "do both at this same time," which is redundant, is that you want discussion of racial issues to go on the back burner.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I feel the "Hillary's going to solve it all" meme coming. What, is she going to use triangulation to solve the race problem this country has had since before it was a country?
I cannot stand that some Hillary-ites seem to be supporting their candidate by accusing O'Malley and Sanders of not caring enough about people of color. I don't buy that she cares more much less would do more about race issues than the other candidates.
That's no way to solve problems or win elections, yet it will be a big debate on DU for the next several months.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)This is not about her, it's about her opponents...and always will be.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I was too disappointed in the idiotic "Beer Summit" to ever expect more from a party insider again...
merrily
(45,251 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)he's complaining about Sanders wanting to fix the economy. There's also someone called GiftedGirl (or some derivative of that), complaining about Sanders "economic BS". That's in a different thread. But 1SBM is debuting his latest phrase "economic primacy" just above.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not "ignoring" structural racism ... just putting it on the to do list ... to be address when there are no more poor people ... even though the structural racism part will mean that, as a class, PoC will still be behind.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Doing both at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)ONLY 1/4th of all black people are poor. 70+% of all black people are doing okay financially and some are millionaires.
All of this "economic justice will help end racial injustice" talk is just bullsh*t, parroted by people who are white and know nothing about racial injustice.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)it would be nice to have a link, or some indication of where you got RR's take, and
maybe there's more that he said, etc.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I hate to say this but to solve these problems...
It takes a village.
Ya, I know but it is going to take all of us.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Indians, Middle Easterners (from the late 1800s, not only after 911).
"Take up the White Man's Burden." Rudyard Kipling.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)organization on their staff. They need to get their ish together so they won't appear unprepared anymore and make it a part of their stump speech. And stop telling people to do their homework and find out who these candidates are. It should be a part of the candidate's stump speech. Don't let Hillary win just because she is a known entity in the party.
They're reporting on the news that Bernie can't win because his large audience is basically White liberals and that the Democrats can't walk around looking like Howard Dean 2.0. running for POTUS in 2004.
If they can get that 65% of black women that help win in 2008 and 2012 excited about them on a subject that matters to them (BLM), then the audience won't look like just white people. And there is a ghost of a chance for Democrats to keep the white house in 2017.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)had not heard that the woman was a part of BLM.
But that aside, I would like to see Bernie ask someone who really is affiliated to be part of his staff.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But HRC's Black Female staffer doesn't count because she worked a couple years (approximately, 1/10th of her career) as a corporate lobbyist ... (advocating for around the issue of diabetes)!
DFW
(54,465 posts)Veronica and Frank Biggins, who are also longtime Clinton friends, would probably be dismissed as black "corporatists," or some such designation, because they had the gall to be successful (how dare they, right?).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)only will accept their Black folks as entertainers, servants or victims.
DFW
(54,465 posts)Actually, when I see Veronica and Frank, it's usually me who ends up entertaining them (they are fans of my guitar concerts, it turns out). They're both on an intellectual level I could only dream of reaching anyway. Both of them are some crazy kind of smart!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but then, again, your one of those 3rd wayers pretending to associate with/accept Black people ... in order to further your evil corporatist plan. Bwaa haaa haaa haaaaa!
DFW
(54,465 posts)Busted! I'm a member of the DLC (Düsseldorf Latte Clique).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)DFW
(54,465 posts)1%er--no idea: dunno what the membership requirements are
don't insult Black DUers--wouldn't occur to me. Wouldn't occur to me to deliberately insult any DUers, for that matter, except for obvious trolls. Black folks don't get a special pass. I'm an equal opportunity pacifist.
support HRC--no more than any other sane contender so far. I just don't happen to hate her, which makes me a member of the "odd man out" crowd here. But just because I disagree with the tone of many Sanders supporters on here, that doesn't mean I'm down on the man himself. There's plenty of time to decide who I'll be supporting in the primary. In the general, we'd have to nominate Zell Miller's ghost before I'd consider not voting Democratic.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)But that aside, I would like to see Bernie ask someone who really is affiliated to be part of his staff.
He's got everything else going for him and that would be all that Bernie would need if you ask me.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)tagged with playing the race card during the primary. Now suddenly she is the champion of the AA community.
There are 44 million people living in poverty in this country. 16 million of them are children. 46% of all you African American children (under age 6) live in poverty. There is one candidate who's main focus is on fighting poverty and for income equality and that is Bernie Sanders. These are the critical issues that frame debate.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)" Now suddenly she is the champion of the AA community. "
Ah yes...that's what I keep reading about. Unfortunately, I don't believe that.
"There is one candidate who's main focus is on fighting poverty and for income equality and that is Bernie Sanders. These are the critical issues that frame debate."
I hope Bernie, along with a member of BLM can find a way for cops to stop murdering African-Americans. We just want to live long enough so that we can avail ourselves of those bread and butter issues. THAT is the number one objective right now.
DFW
(54,465 posts)Let me help you out.
Prosecute their murdering asses when they do it!!! Quickly and, if no legitimate justification for the killing is found, without exception. Give it federal jurisdiction if the locals won't act, and a way can be found, by executive order if need be.
Get an AG and an FBI director to rush in with badges flashing and enough federal firepower so their presence can't be ignored or denied if the local constabulary is too intimidated, too scared, or too corrupt to act. Put any cop that looks like he's committed outright murder on administrative leave--and about $1,000,000 bail like any other accused killer. Same goes for mysterious deaths while in police custody. Women in jail cells, black or otherwise, do not have magical powers to conjure up plastic bags out of thin air, with which they immediately decide to suffocate themselves.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)How about that?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Do you know without BLM group, and issues that are the number one most important thing to Black America...there will NOT be another Democrat in the Whitehouse for a while?
Do you think Bush, Walker, Christie or Cruz give a flying f*** about Cops killing Black America. Black folk are part of the Democratic base just as the Teabaggers are a part of the Republic0n base. You got that?
2banon
(7,321 posts)could be wrong but it's how I read it. 
Stellar
(5,644 posts)and see how that works out for them.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)one or two representatives from the largest ones as a committee that advises all the candidates, maybe even including Republicans, but definitely the Democrats.
that way, there is no tokenism, no co-opting, and the focus is on curing the problem, not on how to make one candidate or another appear more palatable to the public.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)But I'm preaching to the choir and ultimately I suppose, it doesn't mean much if nothing at all. It's going to be a long political season and where I felt optimistic about the general election, I no longer do. But sometimes, you have to be in it for the long haul.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Those stresses promote criminality which feeds the militarization that devalues the lives of racial and ethnic minorities.
Inequality is the root cause.
My day job is working to get employment for people with disabilities. The single most effective tactic for promoting inclusion, acceptance and kinship is getting people jobs. I believe that the same holds true for racial injustice - in an environment where mass unemployment is the exception and not the rule, bigotry can't get a useful toehold.
madville
(7,413 posts)How to exploit what this article is talking about. They are going to bank on attracting more white independents. Obama got 43% of the white vote in 2008, Obama got 39% in 2012 and congressional Democrats got 34% of the white vote in 2014.
There is also the risk of overdoing the white privilege rhetoric, it could drive more whites away from voting for the Democratic Candidate.
A couple of articles about Democrats losing white voters:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-democrats-whites-blacks-romney-obama-perspec-0222-jm-20150220-column.html
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/thomas-edsall-the-demise-of-the-white-democratic-voter.html?referrer=
Liberal In Texas
(13,601 posts)LOL
Uncle Joe
(58,483 posts)Thanks for the thread, kentuck.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)after all, by that logic Emmanuel and Harold Ford would be so far ahead of everyone else on race and gender they'd be invisible, and Sanders and Warren and Sawant would be downright reactionary on race/gender/LGBT, nu?
(also the Berners seem way madder at NN than BLM, in the long term--the questions, after all, were pertinent to real life while the moderator just whiffled around)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
kentuck
(111,110 posts)<snip>
"Racial inequalities are baked into our political and economic system. Police brutality against black men and women, mass incarceration disproportionately of blacks and Latinos, housing discrimination that has resulted in racial apartheid across the nation, and voter suppression in the forms of gerrymandered districts, voter identification requirements, purges of names from voter registration lists, and understaffed voting stations in black neighborhoods – all reveal deep structures of discrimination that undermine economic inequality. Black lives matter. "
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)The fact that Republicans are looking (and have done) to disenfranchise minority voters is a big time problem which adds to the racial inequality. How are they supposed to be heard if the cons have allowed their voice to be surgically removed from our body of politics? They have every right to be P.O.'ed and fired up!
dougolat
(716 posts)...point to another economic factor: perceived permission to mistreat. (That emphasizes rather than negates the race complaint, doesn't it ?)
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Intentionally killing innocents is always wrong.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)compared to white ones?
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Are you seriously projecting thoughts into mine?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)what are these "some other killings" to which you refer?
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)attention than the ones mentioned in that post?
Which makes your claim that they get more attention rather odd--if you can't name them, how do you know they're getting so much attention?
I believe this is where you concede checkmate and stop answering questions.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And the NetRoots folks created this situation that only benefits the GOP.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Nailed it.
Kevin from WI
(184 posts)The Democratic party was already fractured before the NN dust up. It is only going to get worse going forward and we haven't even had a formal debate yet. I really don't see how a divided party can win. That means the Republican party wins more than the white house, because they will have a strong congress. I've seen what Walker has done in WI with that kind of power and that is how they will respond at the national level. I will show up and vote blue on election day regardless, but I am no longer hopeful about the future.
pa28
(6,145 posts)BLM is now saying they'll disrupt all the primary debates in a similar way we saw at Netroots Nation. That's going to become the image Americans associate with a Democratic administration for the next four years.
Division and chaos was the face we showed to the public in 1968 and the public ran away as fast they could. As we all know the result was President Nixon.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Out of the five candidates, she will be the one that benefits from this. People keep saying she'll be confronted. Well I'm not going to hold my breathe that she'll be held to the same standard.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Robert Reich has been singing this song for a long time... and I appreciate his efforts in that regard. very much.
For those who want to have a much more in depth analysis of Reich's summation here, go to this link and read this piece, as the poster said, it's long but it's brilliant. (paraphrasing) and I agree.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026990456
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)fairly consistently. It is not either/or, it is both.
I am not a voice for #blacklivesmatter and do have white privilege such that I can go out into the world and not worry too much about being murdered by racist police or having my community church (though I do not go to church) burned down by racist terrorists. I will stand with the cause in support of any changes they push forward. The third way will not push a wedge my support away from racial injustice.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)They want Sanders to go away and stop talking about liberal ideas.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Damansarajaya
(625 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 22, 2015, 11:50 AM - Edit history (2)
especially at the end of his career:
http://nowcrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/King-Speech-Excerpts-1968-03-18-FINAL.pdf
“You are reminding, not only Memphis, but you are reminding the nation that it is a crime for people to live in this rich nation and receive starvation wages. . . . My friends, we are living as a people in a literal depression. Now you know when there is vast unemployment and underemployment in the black community, they call it a social problem. When there is vast unemployment and underemployment in the white community, they call it a depression. But we find ourselves living in a literal depression . . . . all over this country, as a people.
Now the problem isn’t only unemployment. Do you know that most of the poor people in our country are working every day? They are making wages so low that they cannot begin to function in the main stream of the economic life or our nation. They are making wages so low that they cannot begin to function in the main stream of the economic life of our nation. . . . And it is criminal to have people working on a full time basis and a full time job getting part time income.”
“You are here tonight to demand that Memphis do something about the conditions that our brothers face, as they work day in and day out for the well being of the total community. You are here to demand that Memphis will see the poor.”
“Now, you’re doing something else here. You are highlighting the economic issue. You are going beyond purely civil rights to questions of human rights. That is distinct. . . . Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality. For we know, that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t have enough money to buy a hamburger? What does it profit a man to be able to eat at the swankest integrated restaurant when he doesn’t even earn enough money to take his wife out to dine? What does it profit one to have access to the hotels of our cities, and the hotels of our highways, when we don’t earn enough money to take our family on a vacation? What does it profit one to be able to attend an integrated school when he doesn’t earn enough money to buy his children school clothes?”
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Haven't you heard he did nothing of value, and neither did any of his associates? The problem isn't solved yet, so clearly he isn't relevant.
MLK is so yesterday. Please, for the love of Bernie, stop invoking him!
Hydra
(14,459 posts)They are not, supposedly, national treasures. People who moved our entire society in a better direction.
Malcolm's call to step up and embrace our common humanity, MLK's to our common family of God...apparently we're not allowed to take part in that anymore...because it's contrary to the wedge being pushed.
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)class issues and economic inequality affects people of all races, poor healthcare affects people of all races, and out of control law enforcement affects people of all races.but that doesn't have to mean that there aren't issues that seem to disproportionately harm minority communities. The legacies of slavery and discrimination against immigrant populations are still with us. And they have to be incorporated into the solutions that the candidates often talk about with regard to economic equality. I think the important thing is to not let the GOP use this as a wedge. And they will try.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Whether or not it was deliberate is open for discussion.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and make eradicating racism a top priority, right along with economic issues.
villager
(26,001 posts)And why should they ever discard that playbook when we keep obliging them, over and over...
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The way TPTB keep people divided is to keep them wanting so that they form their tribal factions and stick together against those who are different. It's a natural tendency in humans when people are in need for survival so TPTB need to keep the people fighting over basic necessities to keep them against each other rather than united and fighting against the real problem, which is TPTB.
We need to remember this and keep the focus on being united in our fight for all justice for all people. To pick one over the other is to pick one group of people over the other. People die because of both racial injustice and extreme poverty. Who is anyone to decide which death is preferable? Neither is okay. We need to fight for everyone's needs, all the time.
And that is why this whole kerfuffle about Bernie and PoC is so dangerous, especially because it is directed at only him. That tells me it is a concerted effort to bring him, and only him, down. Why? The only thing I can come up with is that it is coming from the corporatist wing of the party who needs to both bring him down and also to justify backing a centrist economic policy. Well that's not good enough.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)I always liked Robert Reich
He seems to me like he is on our side. Not so sure as he was the big dogs man afterall
Sancho
(9,070 posts)"They are not the same but they are intimately related. Racial inequalities are baked into our political and economic system. Police brutality against black men and women, mass incarceration disproportionately of blacks and Latinos, housing discrimination that has resulted in racial apartheid across the nation, and voter suppression in the forms of gerrymandered districts, voter identification requirements, purges of names from voter registration lists, and understaffed voting stations in black neighborhoods – all reveal deep structures of discrimination that undermine economic inequality."
And I've also presented a parallel list for immigrants. Many times BEFORE Netroots I suggested that some of the minority and immigrant communities were unhappy with an "economic" discussion of Wall Street, TPP, etc. They wanted a broader and specific plan to address Social Justice.
If Democratic candidates don't wise up (and quit talking about their "past" or "bills they introduced"
the result may be a GOP win as part of the base may not vote.
Just saying. Instead of shooting the messenger or attacking Hillary or denying reality; it's time to face up that there is a significant group out there who don't think they are represented. How many? Likely more than is apparent at rallies in Iowa, NH, and the western prairies. Probably millions of potential voters across the sunbelt and urban centers. Most can't take time or have money to attend a rally.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)This "split" is a defining feature of 3rd-Way politics!
socially "progressive", fiscally "conservative"
pffft
subject
(118 posts)unite to fight.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)So much must be decided on and cemented over the next decade for us to continue to create a history, to have something to leave to future generations besides horrible deaths prior to virtual extinction and assured carbon genocide for billions.
So many footballs kicked down the road with no idea or care where they went are now plainly in view and piled high in front of us.
Now is not the time for the slack of heart and bereft of courage. These truly are the times that try men's souls.
