Random General Headlines

[allegro]

That graph applies only to statistics in Chicago, and primarily involves gang violence.

And it's why Spike Lee is making a movie, because people aren't taking it seriously or paying attention and it has to stop.

The biggest activist against this senseless crime in Chicago is a white priest (Michael Pfleger of St Sabina).

[telee.kom]

You can quote FBI statistics all that you want but there's more factoring in to these numbers than race; reasons that are much more complicated than a pie graph chart.

Absolutely - living in ghettos, being poor, having a bad education sure. But you can't act like 2 200 black on black murders is something that is not a concern of black people and it's all fault of the system or society. No matter what color you have, you are still a human being responsible for your own actions. Closing your eyes and act like it's everybody else's fault sounds pretty tone deaf to me.

Also, telling black activists who and what they should prioritize as a social movement is just tone-deaf on your part.

I'm telling my opinion, the movement can prioritize whatever they want. I just don't understand if I'm supposed to shut up about it, because this is a black movement and I'm not black? I mean, wouldn't it be better if this was a two way conversation? Not just shouting from the top of your lungs how white people are being mean to you. I mean, you can do that, but I don't see what this is supposed to accomplish.

[Jinsai]

but what did the interruption of Sanders accomplish? It didn't provide awareness or visibility for a movement, if anything it was a horrible way to present the movement. Yes, we should be taking our progressive politicians to task for failing to address issues and for "falling below the benchmark," but this is not a fair accusation to levy against Sanders, especially when you hold his record against his "white progressive" contemporaries.

If anything, an opportunity for an open forum for debate was actually offered by Sanders there, and when that failed to go anywhere, he tried to step back in and was yelled at for it. He did the right thing by walking away, because that's a no-win situation... but this achieved nothing positive.

[orestes]

Absolutely - living in ghettos, being poor, having a bad education sure. But you can't act like 2 200 black on black murders is something that is not a concern of black people and it's all fault of the system or society. No matter what color you have, you are still a human being responsible for your own actions. Closing your eyes and act like it's everybody else's fault sounds pretty tone deaf to me.



I'm telling my opinion, the movement can prioritize whatever they want. I just don't understand if I'm supposed to shut up about it, because this is a black movement and I'm not black? I mean, wouldn't it be better if this was a two way conversation? Not just shouting from the top of your lungs how white people are being mean to you. I mean, you can do that, but I don't see what this is supposed to accomplish.

Project much?

[playwithfire]

I just don't understand if I'm supposed to shut up about it, because this is a black movement and I'm not black? I mean, wouldn't it be better if this was a two way conversation?

No, it's time for white people to listen, or amplify their voices. It's not our time to speak.

I also want to point out that orestes and I are both white people from the American South, and if we can be sensible about this, y'all can.

[playwithfire]

If anything, an opportunity for an open forum for debate was actually offered by Sanders there, and when that failed to go anywhere, he tried to step back in and was yelled at for it. He did the right thing by walking away, because that's a no-win situation... but this achieved nothing positive.

Well, Sanders has made some notable improvements to his policies in the past couple of weeks in this area. It's also been interesting to see how liberals have reacted to it; I think that has exposed a lot of problems.

I really appreciated this article. http://changefromwithin.org/2015/08/...american-left/

[allegro]

Having personally seen the effectiveness of the Black Panthers or even Bobby Kennedy in the 60s, etc., it seems it would have been more effective to have met with Sanders in advance, with Sanders allowing them some mic time, rather than shove him out of the way like a worthless old man (who is known for showing respect). Protests are a great way to bring attention to progressive causes, but even the 68 Democratic National Convention didn't work out too well. There are smart ways to get results. Dr. King knew that very well.

We definitely need another positive civil rights movement in this country but the current groups are too splintered without good leadership and too narrow objectives. Someday soon there will hopefully be another Dr. King. There has been a black dude in the White House since '08 (something I don't think even Dr. King dreamed of) and that actually made the racists worse. And it's done NOTHING to stop the "genocide" in Obama's own City of Chicago.

[telee.kom]

No, it's time for white people to listen, or amplify their voices. It's not our time to speak.

I'm sure you mean well, but this sounds like an empty phrase to me. America is a multicultural society, people need to coexist with each other. It's not only about blacks or about whites, it's about everybody. Black people won't make a change by taking voice from white people. If those two girls wanted to make a real change, they should work with Sanders or any other candidate that is to their liking and try to make their views part of their program. I mean that's how it works in the real world. This was just a stupid (can you still say stupid?) stunt that won't help anyone.

And I'm sorry, but that article is just terrible. Do you really think people who booed them out of the stage are white supremacists for doing so? They had absolutely no business being there, people went to listen to Senders, not some two teenagers who wanted to spout their hate towards white people. I would booed them out as well, this is not a valid form of protest/promotion of your ideas for me.

[allegro]

There were many white people walking shoulder-to-shoulder with Dr. King in the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s (including Barry Sanders). Dr. King recognized and appreciated all voices that spoke up against oppression. But Dr. King was also a very respectful man with a plan, and he was charismatic and intelligent and he galvanized the movement. He knew that getting whites to understand and join the movement would greatly help the movement.

This woman has an interesting take on this, except she is missing some key points:

If a black President and a black attorney general have done nothing to change this, what do you possibly think a white old guy can do? The answer? Nothing. Because the President, alone, does not have that kind of power. The kind of change you (many of us) seek isn't going to come from one Daddy figure we put into office, ESPECIALLY not a "Democratic Socialist" who will be shot down every time he speaks. No, this kind of change requires some HUGE protests, HUGE demands that go way beyond what a President can do.

You know, like this:


Frankly, Bernie Sanders ain't gonna need black votes for the primary because Bernie Sanders ain't gonna make it out of Iowa.

[playwithfire]

I'm sure you mean well, but this sounds like an empty phrase to me. America is a multicultural society, people need to coexist with each other. It's not only about blacks or about whites, it's about everybody. Black people won't make a change by taking voice from white people.

Look, I grew up miles from where sit-ins actually happened. Black people still get *lynched* where I am from. Mardi Gras started in the closest city to me. The troupes are STILL. SEGREGATED.

Growing up white in the south made an impact on my perspective here that I don't think you can really get if you haven't experienced it. Growing up white in *America* is a unique experience and I don't think you can understand it if you haven't lived it.

[allegro]

I grew up in Detroit during the '67 race riots, with tanks rolling down the streets. People seem to always think this is only isolated to the south, but it's not. It's just sad that I cried when a black President was inaugurated but we've still seen so little change in so many ways. But, I think @telee.kom 's point is that getting blacks and whites to join together to fix this problem is beneficial. Read the text of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Just like the gay movement was going nowhere until the heterosexuals joined the cause to make a much louder voice. Like the women's suffrage and women's rights movement had so many men helping the cause.

It's sad that we have this many black shootings in Chicago, so many children and young people dying, we reached the 1,000 mark this year back in June.

[playwithfire]

I don't think it's only isolated to the South, and I've never been to Chicago, but I can tell you that things are very different in NYC vs. Alabama.

Allies are important and necessary, but allies knowing that they are ALLIES and not the voice of the movement is also important.

[allegro]

I don't think it's only isolated to the South, and I've never been to Chicago, but I can tell you that things are very different in NYC vs. Alabama.

I understand that, but "I can't breathe" happened it NYC. And the text of King's speech is just as true today as it was in 1963.

[Mantra]

but what did the interruption of Sanders accomplish? It didn't provide awareness or visibility for a movement, if anything it was a horrible way to present the movement. Yes, we should be taking our progressive politicians to task for failing to address issues and for "falling below the benchmark," but this is not a fair accusation to levy against Sanders, especially when you hold his record against his "white progressive" contemporaries.

If anything, an opportunity for an open forum for debate was actually offered by Sanders there, and when that failed to go anywhere, he tried to step back in and was yelled at for it. He did the right thing by walking away, because that's a no-win situation... but this achieved nothing positive.

I suspect that Sanders was chosen because he (and his audience) have the most potential for change. Yeah they could go to a Trump rally or something (and probably risk their lives by doing so) because sure, shithead Republicans are way more deserving to be called white supremacists than Sanders and his crowd, obviously. But what would be the point of that? Republicans are utterly hopeless when it comes to racial matters. And their chances with Hillary aren't much better. So Sanders is the best ticket they've got. He's the most progressive candidate in the race, the one who is most likely to be moved on race matters because of what he is supposed to represent. And yet, despite the fact that he's their best hope, he really hadn't made racial issues enough of a focus for this campaign, which is pretty stupid given the shit that's been going down here for the last couple years. These types of actions have a better chance of motivating him to do so. Most other candidates could respond with some knee jerk reactionary bullshit against the BLM movement, but Sanders can't really afford to do that, because he'd risk sounding too much like a fucking Republican.

So I don't know, when I first read about the incident, I wasn't super crazy about it, but the more I've thought and read about it the more I actually do think it makes sense. And personally, I don't think BLM came out of this looking any worse than the Sanders crowd. Honestly, when I actually sat down to watch the videos of the event and I heard the shit that some of the people were saying, I was pretty repulsed, which was not what I was expecting to feel. The Sanders supporters made themselves look pretty bad. All that screaming and booing and the fucking trash they were saying, jesus. They sort of proved those girls right. And then to see all these fucking white people scolding and lecturing BLM afterwards, ugh. Fucking disgusting.

Basically it all comes down to white liberals feeling pissed off that the finger was pointed at them. They think of themselves as different from racist Republicans, they're the "good guys," and they don't want to be lumped together with the "bad guys." But honestly, seeing the way they acted at the rally and the way they've responded in the aftermath, it seems like there actually IS a bit of overlap between certain white attitudes on the left and the right. And so by revealing that, this action was somewhat successful. And sure, some white progressives may feel annoyed and uncomfortable, but just MAYBE they need to humble themselves (for once) and reassess their smug, shitty attitudes.

[allegro]

And sure, some white progressives may feel annoyed and uncomfortable, but just MAYBE they need to humble themselves (for once) and reassess their smug, shitty attitudes.

"Uncomfortable" is the key word, here, because it all made no sense, for BLM and for the Bernie fans who's already worked themselves into a Bernie frenzy and weren't prepared for whatever interruption that they encountered, even if a Marxist jumped onstage and started reciting Marxist texts in favor of single-payor healthcare. It was cognitive dissonance at its very best, which was presented as "blacks vs whites vs blacks" but it was really just political chest-beating vs. social-cause chest-beating, which kinda works out the same way when it interrupts their Bernie-frenzy rally. Just like when the trans person interrupted Obama during the gay marriage frenzy rally at the White House. "Don't interrupt the party frenzy" is the main lesson, no matter how good your cause or who you are, etc., or you'll be shot down by the masses (or even the President). The ultimate interruption of a Presidential campaign frenzy, of course, being Sirhan Sirhan's in 1968.

[Mantra]

"Uncomfortable" is the key word, here, because it all made no sense, for BLM and for the Bernie fans who's already worked themselves into a Bernie frenzy and weren't prepared for whatever interruption that they encountered, even if a Marxist jumped onstage and started reciting Marxist texts in favor of single-payor healthcare. It was cognitive dissonance at its very best, which was presented as "blacks vs whites vs blacks" but it was really just political chest-beating vs. social-cause chest-beating, which kinda works out the same way when it interrupts their Bernie-frenzy rally.

Totally, of course, but dissonance and discomfort is basically the whole point of these kinds of actions. When they shutdown the highways in the civil rights movement, the point was to get in peoples face and disrupt their day. That's what makes it actual activism and not, you know, writing a letter to your fucking congressmen or some other useless nonsense.

And I just think it's hilarious how all sorts of people suddenly turn into strategy experts on leftist activism whenever there's a demonstration they don't approve of. Sure, if fellow BLM activists want to discuss among themselves, as equals and as fellow activists, what worked and what didn't, cool. But I read comments from straight up republicans talking all arrogantly about "what would be a much more effective approach" for BLM, and it's always the lamest fucking ideas you've ever heard. As if these people know jack shit about anything.

That quote Orestes posted yesterday was so spot on: "And in the face of state-sanctioned violence, they are not looking to embrace salvation through respectability."

[Sarah K]

*People talk about and discuss ways to advance social justice online, and within local groups

*Other people complain BUT U SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS AREN'T DOING ANYTHING

*Activists actually do something

*BUT THIS ISN'T THE TIME OR PLAAAAACE


~herp a derp~

[orestes]

Totally, of course, but dissonance and discomfort is basically the whole point of these kinds of actions. When they shutdown the highways in the civil rights movement, the point was to get in peoples face and disrupt their day. That's what makes it actual activism and not, you know, writing a letter to your fucking congressmen or some other useless nonsense.

And I just think it's hilarious how all sorts of people suddenly turn into strategy experts on leftist activism whenever there's a demonstration they don't approve of. Sure, if fellow BLM activists want to discuss among themselves, as equals and as fellow activists, what worked and what didn't, cool. But I read comments from straight up republicans talking all arrogantly about "what would be a much more effective approach" for BLM, and it's always the lamest fucking ideas you've ever heard. As if these people know jack shit about anything.

That quote Orestes posted yesterday was so spot on: "And in the face of state-sanctioned violence, they are not looking to embrace salvation through respectability."

Or even worse, the theory going around that they were plants from HRC campaign, as if they need outsider help to protest.

[allegro]

Totally, of course, but dissonance and discomfort is basically the whole point of these kinds of actions. When they shutdown the highways in the civil rights movement, the point was to get in peoples face and disrupt their day. That's what makes it actual activism and not, you know, writing a letter to your fucking congressmen or some other useless nonsense.

But isn't the best protest the protesting of the people or entity actually doing the bad stuff? I mean, a bunch of anti-GMO people showing up at a daycare center is a dumb move, yes? But, a bunch of anti-GMO people protesting in front of Monsanto, or even marching in front of the Capital building makes sense? Choosing the venue carefully makes sense. Pushing aside an old man who probably won't even make it out of Iowa is, I dunno, like shouting into a toilet? The movement I thought had a lot more steam was Occupy, but even they were squelched pretty early on in the game. The Man has the ability to kill a movement before it gathers much steam and threatens the Status Quo. But, you see that the most successful Bernie meetings have been organized by reddit? Underground anonymous movements that are harder to track and squelch?

(Writing to congresspeople actually works a lot of times, btw. I know somebody who works at a Federal facility where people are treated like shit and have been for a very long time. Somebody finally had the foresight to write to the local congressperson and, voila, suddenly a whole shitload of D.C. people have swooped down upon said facility, including the inspector general. Enough public pressure and awareness about police shootings led Congress to do this last year. Public pressure led to Chicago's allowing independent stop-and-frisk evaluation. A lot of that "public pressure" came from letters to editors, the ACLU, letters to aldermen, subsequent aldermanic pressure, etc.)

I was accidentally in the middle of a GIANT immigration policy protest around 10 years ago in downtown Chicago that started over by the United Center and ended over at Grant Park.

Which had been PLANNED and they had permits and stuff. It wasn't just this sudden "here we are, here to fuck up your day" kind of thing.

There are a TON of Chicago cops in full riot gear which I had never seen before but they were very peaceful, just standing around. And it was all actually one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life. I mean, there were, like, a half a million people walking down the middle of the street! An OCEAN of people! Carrying signs and just peacefully walking together.

I still think this new Spike Lee movie is going to have the same valuable affect as "Do the Right Thing." Hopefully.

[elevenism]

damn. i went out of town and missed the news for a few days and now i have no idea what you guys are talking about.

time to catch up i guess


edit: Okay.
So i read some of you guys reasoning as to why they protested at Bernie's speech, but i still don't get it.

Why protest at the speech of someone who is an actual dyed in the wool 1960s civil rights activist?

I get the point that protesting at a GOP speech would be akin to protesting at a kkk rally, but seriously...why not protest Clinton or something?

[allegro]

why not protest Clinton or something?

Hillary saw Dr. King speak in 1962 so she's not exactly a KKK member, either. But, yeah, she's a WASP.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders’ New Racial Justice Platform Wins Praise From Black Lives Matter Activists.

This won't help his really shitty stance on immigration, but whatever.

[Mantra]

But isn't the best protest the protesting of the people or entity actually doing the bad stuff?

Well for one thing, BLM certainly does take the fight to the entity doing the bad stuff. There's been no shortage of BLM protests outside of police stations and stuff like that. But also, no, protesting that actual entity is not necessarily the best choice every single time. I mean, being involved involved in shit like that takes an exhausting amount of time, effort, planning, etc, and when the truly hardcore shit goes down, like people getting tazed and peppersprayed and beat down and arrested, it's scary as fuck. That's why one of the biggest issues that any movement/organization has to contend with is the collective sense of motivation, and the way to sustain motivation is through tangible victories, not pointless symbolic bullshit that just wears people down while achieving absolutely nothing. As soon as people start sensing that there's no real impact, that's when the group meetings start dwindling down to a small group of a just few hardcore members, who obviously can't do shit on their own (case in point: occupy).

So if you're BLM and you're trying to figure out how to make sure your cause is part of the conversation in this election cycle, who are you gonna target? A republican? What's the point? Might as well try reasoning the Klan while you're at it. So that leaves Hillary and Bernie. Hillary is an entrenched politician who's fucking wishy-washy and "moderate." She gives a small amount of lip service to BLM, mostly to try and secure the black vote that Obama was able to bring out, but you obviously can't really count on her, she's not truly down for the cause. And anyway, she's probably up to her ass in security, you could never pull it off.

Bernie's the smartest choice to put pressure on. He's the one who will be most sensitive to being called out on race issues, because he's supposed to be an ally. From a strategic standpoint, if you don't want to waste the efforts of your activists, he's the one who offers the greatest potential for actual tangible victories. They've got a better chance at moving him more than any other candidate, and in fact his response to their pressure seems to support this.

[Baphomette]

I was accidentally in the middle of a GIANT immigration policy protest around 10 years ago in downtown Chicago

That happened on my birthday. It was in 2006, in response to HR 4437.

This won't help his really shitty stance on immigration, but whatever.

Even if he were to get the nomination (which he won't), the only way he'd get the Latino vote is if he ran against Trump. He's speaking downtown tonight. Can't wait to hear how he's received in this state where the majority of the population is Latino.

It's not only about blacks or about whites,

I agree. The second largest "minority" group in the country keeps getting left out of the conversation.

[allegro]

Bernie's the smartest choice to put pressure on. He's the one who will be most sensitive to being called out on race issues, because he's supposed to be an ally. From a strategic standpoint, if you don't want to waste the efforts of your activists, he's the one who offers the greatest potential for actual tangible victories. They've got a better chance at moving him more than any other candidate, and in fact his response to their pressure seems to support this.

Yes, but:
(a) he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary, let alone the Presidential election
(b) he can't do anything to change:
[1] the militarization of the police
[2] the SCOTUS decisions that protect the police
[3] state and local elected officials and police unions that aren't controlled by the Feds or the Executive Office

They have a black dude in the White House right now. And he can't do shit, other than to send in the black Attorney General, Eric Holder, who can send in investigators to see if civil rights have been violated (and that's pretty hard to prove when corrupt police forces cover this shit up) which is all lipservice until you take away the police's unilateral ability to do whatever they want under those SCOTUS decisions. Until Congress passes laws that reverse those SCOTUS decisions and removes some police powers, nothing President Bernie Sanders does can change one god damned thing. But the general public sentiment right now seems to be "give the police MORE POWER." So no movement right now is going to change this situation, so long as the people in Congress love the status quo and the people who elect them want them to stay there.

And, really, Bernie Sanders is just in "get myself elected" mode right now. He's gonna tell anybody what they want to hear, knowing full well he can't do shit.

Kinda like Obama did for the last 2 elections. You know, Mr. Professor of Constitutional Law. A Change We Can Believe In?

Yeah, they pretty much all do that, really.

[Mantra]

Yes, but:
(a) he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary, let alone the Presidential election
(b) he can't do anything to change:
[1] the militarization of the police
[2] the SCOTUS decisions that protect the police
[3] state and local elected officials and police unions that aren't controlled by the Feds or the Executive Office

They have a black dude in the White House right now. And he can't do shit, other than to send in the black Attorney General, Eric Holder, who can send in investigators to see if civil rights have been violated (and that's pretty hard to prove when corrupt police forces cover this shit up) which is all lipservice until you take away the police's unilateral ability to do whatever they want under those SCOTUS decisions. Until Congress passes laws that reverse those SCOTUS decisions and removes some police powers, nothing President Bernie Sanders does can change one god damned thing. But the general public sentiment right now seems to be "give the police MORE POWER." So no movement right now is going to change this situation, so long as the people in Congress love the status quo and the people who elect them want them to stay there.

And, really, Bernie Sanders is just in "get myself elected" mode right now. He's gonna tell anybody what they want to hear, knowing full well he can't do shit.

Kinda like Obama did for the last 2 elections.

Mostly agreed, but still, who else are they gonna throw their weight behind? Hillary? Nobody? I mean, yeah there are all sorts of radical organizations that don't fuck with electoral politics at all because they say the whole system is rigged, corrupt, etc (a perspective I'm pretty sympathetic to, actually), so they just don't even bother. But if you're not in that camp, and you are gonna try to have some presence in electoral politics, you gotta figure out who to support. I definitely do understand all the stuff you're saying about the bigger roadblocks to genuine police reform, but isn't that kind of a different issue? This is about making your cause part of the conversation in an upcoming presidential election.

And as far as his electibility goes, who knows, some of them may be banking on the fact that he is rising in polls (obviously not enough, not yet, but who knows) and that a surge of support from black voters might help him.

[allegro]

When I say "protest the bad guys who do this," I don't mean the cops; I mean Congress. Because, ultimately, Congress is responsible for passing laws that limit police powers and for making police responsible for their actions and for overturning those SCOTUS decisions. I mean protesting at local city halls and state houses all over the country and making elected officials accountable. Real protest requires Federal lawsuits, Congressional appeals, carpet-bombing Congress with demands, voters letting their Congressional representatives and Governors and Mayors know why they are there and what is expected.

Ultimately, these SCOTUS decisions must be overturned via laws that limit and strictly define police powers; the police must be required to have body cameras, must be required a certain number of hours of diversity training per year, must be required to know the laws and adhere to them, etc. The police unions must be held accountable and must adhere to Federal laws. The police's duties must be to serve and protect, not to kill and destroy. Nobody on an Executive level can do this; Congress must use their powers to pass laws. We currently have a REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS. We need enough change that will convince Congress that this all needs to change, that the police need to be held accountable. The only way that can happen is for a clear message to be sent from the populace to Congress.

We have a lame-duck black dude in office right now who doesn't give a shit about being re-elected and who could certainly make all of this his pet project if he wanted; but he knows he can't do shit, so he ain't. That should be a giant Memo to BLM, but they ain't getting the message.

The things that a President can do to help black and Latino lives is help economic reform, help education reform, help healthcare reform. Help to work with Congress to raise the Federal minimum wage, help to get minorities into state colleges for free, help them onto a career path at trade schools, help them get free or very affordable daycare, get them out of ghettos and into better neighborhoods, etc.

Ultimately, they're going to have to get behind Hillary because it's likely that Hillary is going to win the primary and who else are they going to vote for? Jeb? Unless they aren't going to vote at all. And that wastes a whole lot of lives of black people who died for the right to vote in this country.

A surge in black votes might help him but, really, there are a HELL of a lot more Latinos voting in this country and immigration reform is going to be THE BIG ISSUE in this election.

And Jeb speaks Español.

[Mantra]

wow wtf

http://reverbpress.com/politics/blac...rty-palin-fan/

[allegro]

wow wtf

http://reverbpress.com/politics/blac...rty-palin-fan/

That YouTube vid is nice. It almost makes me feel hopeful about Bernie again.

[Jinsai]

and the person who sabotaged Bernie's speech in Seattle was a Palin supporter?

am I reading this right?

[Sarah K]

Yes. But she's also super young. People learn and evolve. My political views most certainly don't match what I believed in middle school and high school.