Rolling 2015 Thread on Race

Wow http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-chicago-katrina-financial-disaster-landrieu-new-orleans-mcqueary-emanuel-pers-20150813-column.html

I meant the linked article was garbage, not the link itself

what dumbasses in 2015 make you register to read the news...

all of them iirc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/08/13/dutch-newspaper-uses-n-word-in-headline-of-review-of-ta-nehisi-coatess-new-book/?tid=sm_tw

paging our european friends to chime in with some bullshit

Our European friends generally consider Holland to be really fucked up in this matter.

but hey man, what about rappers saying the n-word

CHECKMATE

Wow http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-chicago-katrina-financial-disaster-landrieu-new-orleans-mcqueary-emanuel-pers-20150813-column.html

― where the sterls have no name (s.clover), Thursday, August 13, 2015 8:29 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, saw this. She can DIA(Chicago)F as far as I'm concerned. That would truly be a benefit flowing from a crisis.

I recently moved to a French village (b/c lol @ Paris rents) and have had two encounters already with neighbors making racist remarks, out of nowhere.

directed at you or just in the course of conversation

no not at me, I'm just an american as far as they're concerned (which is a nice feeling fwiw, I'm latino). one was directed at Roma, the other at African immigrants.

Meanwhile, ongoing coziness with Clinton. I'm still not buying the explanations of the Sanders protests

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter_55cbbfebe4b064d5910a6f0b

which explanation do you favor idgi

I know it's a decentralized movement, but a TFA exec wants to pull Sanders further left?

And meanwhile it's all simpatico with Hillary?

so you think this is some Clinton ratfucking? If so, Sanders seems to have outmaneuvered them p handily and quickly

Bear in mind that this is mostly being viewed through a broadly pro-Clinton media lens that oversimplifies the complexities of the movement, overstates its hostility to Sanders and can't be trusted in reporting its relationship with the Hillary camp. I've not seen any great warmth towards Clinton so far.

well from that huffpo link it seems that perhaps Clinton's security are just a bit better at preventing the protesters from getting on stage.

"broadly pro-Clinton media"

Ha ha, welcome to Earth. We'll wait while you catch up.

Do you think the Democrat-leaning, centrist news sources 'calling Sanders out' are looking for a more radical candidate?

the Democrat-leaning, centrist news sources

have no idea what you're referring to here tbh

Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, MSNBC, etc

Is there anything recent the current admin is doing to address the issue? Genuinely asking, all I can find is the task force and the report that was published in May.

so you think this is some Clinton ratfucking? If so, Sanders seems to have outmaneuvered them p handily and quickly

― Οὖτις, Friday, August 14, 2015 11:28 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't know. It was my first suspicion after netroots, but then I couldn't immediately find anything to back it up. But Doug Henwood has been posting some stuff lately about some key BLM people having ties to Clinton, but they're not necessarily the strongest ties, and also it's perfectly possible that BLM is just politically diverse.

... Or maybe the Clintons have historically been popular among black Americans, which doesn't automatically make them lap dogs who are jumping to do her bidding? I mean ffs

I didn't call anyone lap dogs.

Why would your first suspicion after Netroots be "Clinton must have set them"?

The right isn't the only side that can dog-whistle, you know.

Given the Clinton legacy of the Sister Souljah moment, abolishing AFDC, helping to create an economic bubble that paved the way for a crash, the notorious crime bill with its mandatory sentences, and the tonedeaf (partic in Bill's case) nature of some remarks on Obama in '08, their historic popularity among black Americans just makes me scratch my head.

Votes for Democrat = votes for Clintons

their historic popularity among black Americans just makes me scratch my head

is Hillary as popular w black Americans as Bill? that would be kinda surprising to me. always felt Bubba's popularity w black America had a lot to do with his personality than his policy. And Hillary is a personality-vacuum by contrast.

a lot MORE to do

that should say

His popularity with black people is not more surprising than his popularity with anyone else. He's a great politician.

I didn't say Bill's popularity was surprising

The right isn't the only side that can dog-whistle, you know.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Friday, August 14, 2015 2:53 PM (45 minutes ago)

hurting wasn't dog-whistling

the clintons being popular with black americans shouldn't necessarily excuse BLM's leadership from challenging them! if anything, according to the tactics as laid out by the woman's FB post you linked (which i agree with btw), hillary should be even more appealing!

that said i'm not really buying the conspiracy. if occupy/tea party/other grassroots movements have taught us anything BLM is a heterogenous group made up of people with different goals, so there are bound to be contradictions

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/24/hillary-clintons-all-lives-matter-remark-stirs-backlash/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417112956/hillary-clintons-three-word-gaffe-all-lives-matter
https://twitter.com/deray/status/613679311778877440

how short are all of your memories

what do you mean "all"

I mean "all of the people saying that no one affiliated with BLM is challenging/has challenged Clinton"

if occupy/tea party/other grassroots movements have taught us anything BLM is a heterogenous group made up of people with different goals, so there are bound to be contradictions

Yes which is kind of frustrating when you read and article on a single person's actions and it is tied to an entire movement.

HRC can say something one day and say something else the next day, my mind will not explode from that contradiction.

right, some people on twitter were upset by that (xxxp). i think hurting's point is that the relationship with sanders has been a bit more directly adversarial. but again, with these sorts of things, it's foolish to ascribe the actions of some people with the movement as a whole and the people they represent

fuck hurting and fuck you

mwah

i wasn't even agreeing with hurting you mercurial dipshit

the relationship with sanders has been a bit more directly adversarial

nah I think this can be ascribed entirely to the differing scope and powers of Sanders and Clinton's campaign. Sanders didn't have the security detail, the big team of handlers, etc. so BLM activists had an easier time gaining visibility and being genuinely disruptive

campaigns even

Honestly you guys are talking to/about me like I came in her and posted "#alllivesmatter." I agree with BLM's message and generally tactics, I just think that the disruptions of Sanders' speeches were either (A) a tactical mistake or (B) a deliberate attempt to deflate Sanders, and I sincerely hope it's just "A". I think I am capable of and entitled to think that without it meaning that I somehow have a condescending attitude toward all black activism which is what I feel like you are getting at. I know that the people who disrupted the speeches don't necessarily represent the movement as a whole, I know its national structure is on the looser side, less so than occupy but still loose. If you think these events have worked out great for everyone, fine. The fact that it at least got candidates to talk about black people is a fair point. I just think that outside the ILX bubble of people who are mostly left in pretty much the same way, there are a lot of people who are sort of borderline and could be reached but are not going to react well to their precariously leading candidate being "targeted" in a way that makes it seem as though he's seen as the problem, when he does, ultimately, have a platform that is closer to BLM's agenda than any other candidate, even if it didn't openly frame things in terms of race until very recently. Just like I think those people aren't going to react well to being labeled white supremacist, even though I know what the activists meant by that.

I just think that the disruptions of Sanders' speeches were either (A) a tactical mistake

How was that a tactical mistake? They got a candidate who's getting a lot of coverage and who was not previously all that committed to their goals to hire one of their own and start explicitly addressing the issue. This is p much the ideal outcome of such tactics.

But it angered some white people, ergo it was a mistake.