Spacedog1973
Spacedog1973's JournalI think that is a very fair analysis
Of the situation. There is also a sense of impotence mixed into this; the solution of 'doing something', anything, that might somehow work.
'Work' as in halting the progressive march of essentially multiculturalism which of course a Brexit cannot do. Its an illusion, it means different things to different people; the Brexit campaign was almost devoid of meaning - the perfect presentation for those to 'paint' what they will upon that blank canvas, not unlike the 'Trump Wall', the 'Getting our country back' mantras.
I see this as nothing more than the panicked and confused efforts of the self disenfranchised, the newly dispossessed, or rather, those who have enjoyed essentially an inbuilt privilege, sulking because of the growing competitiveness that the EU represented. Its happening in all countries where white privilege is suffering from the simple fact of being outnumbered and consequentially dis-empowered.
In this case, the revolt started in the UK, due to the personality traits contained within the dominate culture as you accurately describe. Being 'better' than everyone else, there is less shame in being outwardly bigoted, after all, who are the Europeans to judge us.
The ironic thing in this is that the 'new Britain', alone and apart from Europe, will exhibit a home truth that will hit harder than ever following this win; absolutely nothing will change in any real sense. Not because it isn't wanted, but because it can't. The EU is a result of factors that make it necessary. We were in it because of those factors. To be outside it, we simply cannot function and maintain the prestige that out culture demands it have.
We will be outside it officially, but for all intents and purposes, the trade, immigration, legislation, corporation, movement of people and the costs incurred and everything that the Brexit campaign claimed were problems, will remain almost the same.
Personally I think its more to do with location
She moved to Arkansas and met with bill and following that, her involvement with POC and issues which resonate with them, seemed to increase. I happen to believe that when surrounded by racism, white people can either become a part of it, or fight against it. Further, some of the best white allies come from the South, both professional and unsung. Its their deep and daily understanding of racism that tends to do it, rather than the 'theoretical' understanding that so many white people outside these areas seem to hold.
White women, white gay people, white minorities unfortunately, show little natural empathy with people of color despite ther own marginalisation. I see it like poor whites that look on POC and say to themselves; 'Lucky we don't have it as bad'. Making sure they aren't on the 'last rung of the ladder' by if necessary, applying a 'boot to the face' of the black man hanging on there below them.
Bill Clinton was one of those white people, that knew racism and I believe would have taught Hillary much of the realities of living in the south.
In regard to why black people resonate with Hillary rather than Bernie, for myself, I like to call it an instinct: Racism can kill you, if you can't read the signs, to see the clues, to develop a 'feeling' for people who may harbour prejudice with malice. A white person who isn't racist is pretty obvious, a white person with carefully hidden prejudice is the norm unfortunately and a POC has simply to wait for the clues to come tumbling out. I would say Bernie is an old school guy, a sort of professor with his head in the clouds, obsessed about numbers and theorems; when brought to 'earth' and asked about the issues of the day, he is at a loss, clumsy and thoughtless as he has been throughout his campaign when speaking to POC. Those clues, perhaps without malice, nevertheless come tumbling out. They sound like fingers on a chalkboard to me. His online advocates amplify that 'deafening screech' until its unavoidable.
Hillary on the other hand can talk of the issues with a level of understanding that is genuine. Again; instinct. You can't bullshit an understanding of racism to a POC, any-more than an able-bodied man can bullshit what it is like to live 5 years in a wheelchair to a disabled man in a wheelchair. Hillary is old though, as is Bernie. Sometimes we forget how old these people are and how difficult it is for them to resonate on these issues off the back of such a president as Obama who obviously knew the issue inside and out.
It comes to this; for Hillary to cheat the black vote and turn her back on them after getting their votes, would require her to knowingly backstab them. That would be an evil act. Bernie would do it through ignorance, which is far too easy. In addition, his followers, similarly ignorant, wouldn't see any issue with him doing so.
People are individuals
and hold a number of views. Looking at vocal supporters as a whole, we can draw some conclusions but obviously there is no group mind.
The difference here, however, is that a white progressive can be supportive of BLM or anti racist work and at the flip of a coin, can tune out the level of urgency at will. After all, it has little objective impact upon them regardless of what stance they hold.
Black people on the other hand cannot change their views about Black lives, how could they? They can't decide that economic equity is more important than their children lives tomorrow because of a protest. That is impossible.
There is no equivalence to both groups.
BLM is the best thing that has happened to Bernie
O'Malley would love some of the attention these protests are giving Bernie's campaign.
1. Large crowds by themselves do not make a campaign. Especially when they are not covered by mainstream media. Ron Paul had large crowds during his run, but they weren't covered mainly and things fizzled out.
2. The protests bring media interest in an otherwise bland campaign to outsiders. Bernie, outside of the white progressive bubble, wasn't widely recognised. BLM by itself draws black interest in what they are doing and why they are giving a message and to whom. Their presence at Bernie's protests, draws black eyes to his campaign. Eyes that to be frank, would not otherwise have been drawn to him.
3. BLM isn't a political campaign. It isn't tied to either the Dems or Repubs. It isn't tied to any candidate. Its about black lives. The goal will be sought by any means necessary. Its not about Bernie, or the Dems, despite both being the best and most likely way of getting their goals met. By raising this as an issue, it makes it incumbent upon other candidates to include their issues in their manifestos and raise awareness in practical terms as an agenda for the next president to implement.
4. Bernie wasn't putting black lives front and centre in his campaign and white progressives were fine with it, at least, it took BLM to point out its absence. White progressives also sought to 'splain' that Bernie's historic civil rights actions were comprehensive enough not to require specific policies. Yet specific policies on climate change, pay equality, trade unions, health care etc are the very things that attracted them to Bernie: black people were required to be satisfied with generalities and assumptions based on a pattern of voting and historic actions.
5. BLM has achieved some of its goals in a very short period of time; Bernie has hired a racially aware staff member and has changed his manifesto to reflect their demands.
6. Bernie's campaign needs BLM, more than BLM needs Bernie. Bernie won't be nominated without black votes, without black eyes on his campaign and when those eyes are on him, he needs to be saying things that will resonate with that demographic. BLM has helped him do just that and increase his appeal to a wider audience that he didn't have the knowledge or ability and awareness to do by himself.
7. DU progressives and elsewhere have shown how supremacy is all pervasive and how misplaced paternalism can lead us down the wrong path. BLM isn't 'their issue'. Any progressive worthy of the name would refer to it as 'our issue' and understand why.
Its nothing to do with the constitution
Its to do with a different perspective on life, how to live life, the sort of basic things that people need to get on in life that Europeans have worked out and the US are still taking baby steps with.
As for 'who care what they think' since it sounds like a question, I do. Unless you live in an isolated bubble and surround yourself with those who agree, I guess you don't think its relevant.
As for arresting those for speech they don't like, yes, we call it hate speech. The freedom to speak comes with responsibility and by using speech as a weapon, it harms the individual and society as a whole. If people can't enjoy free speech without harming others through it, they lack a vocabulary, not freedom. In my view, hate speech laws would provide far more clarity and unity to your troubled nations and help some people grow up. Its not perfect, but its better than the mess you have.
They were both shooting blanks
But Toure upset him by basically telling him that he doesn't have the right to talk about the Zimmerman issue as he hasn't been in the US long enough. And that got Pier's back up. As much as I dislike Piers, he has a right to be pissed off at that statement. Then Toure critised him on giving a softball interview to the Zimmerman brother.
What did Toure Expect? I saw that as dumb. Sorry. T'was dumb and then it just turned to testosterone and egos which given the backdrop of the tragedy, was more selfish than I can stand.
The Reps race-baiting and smears
Are the things which seem to work for them. They smear and the smear sticks. Thats one thing they do well
Hmm, they just want to smear
Fox aren't able to do much else. lets not give them a power they don't have
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Mar 30, 2012, 07:35 PMNumber of posts: 221
