General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am, not surprised; but, somewhat dismayed with ...
Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)
the attempts of many on DU to make Baltimore about something other than social justice, i.e., the racial mistreatment of Black men, women, and children, and instead making it about economic justice.
So let me be clear ...
As a Black man in America, I want both, as I am being denied both. But if I were to choose one, to be addressed before the other, I would choose social justice over economic justice, because the latter would be hollow, if not, unattainable, without the former.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)There are many here who think it is an either or, but the bottom line is, we need BOTH. If you do not have economic justice, and the power that it entails, then there is nothing that cannot be taken away from you. On the other hand, if you have social injustice but economic power, then it is only a matter of time before the majority finds ways to kill you and take your stuff. The rpoblem many on DU have is that while they are arguing about how many angels dance on their favorite head of a pin, people are getting killed.
Social and economic justice are two halves of the same coin, one without the other, is useless, and anyone at DU who claims to have any real intentions needs to address both, and not force minorities to ask which they want.
what makes me angry about DU is that you, or for that matter, I (yo soy Boricua) should ever, ever, ever be forced to ask, or even concieve, or even explain which you want more. The people asking this of us might as well ask if we want lethal injection or hanging. Yes, there are little nuances, but in the end, we do the dying! And just because some of the majority were foolish enough to think that one was needed more than the other (which is why things have gone downhill for everybody to the left of Nixon) does nto mean we should make their mistake.
PS: this reply is not about condeming you for being pissed off and sad, it is more a shout at the people that got you to that point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and appreciate that.
And know ... what got me there is not:
Being asked to choose; but being told what my choice should be ... a choice that, BTW, and as you have noted, leaves me wanting; but makes those telling me my choice, whole.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... no, quite likely, that the savagery with which people of color are mistreated by police is sort of a "canary in the coal mine" for the rest of us.
This cartoon I did last year following the murder of Michael Brown illustrates my point.
The Right-wing oligarchy wants total control of everyone's lives, but it's easiest to justify denying our civil rights by invoking the fear of "THEM" by demonizing segments of the population that low-IQ Pox News viewers are all too eager to see victimized: Black people and women.
I'm well into my 7th decade, and I've been watching this shit go down for a long time. Even the long-time habitues of DU don't fully realize just how unutterably evil the Right-wingers really are. But they will, I promise you.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)of the amerikkkan 'Troubles'.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)want to rationalize supporting a candidate that most likely will offer only one. IMO you can not have social justice w/o economic justice. The Oligarchy is making us poor and also tightening the police control of us. We need to stop both.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Do you have to make everything a bash on HRC and those that support her? You look ridiculous doing that, IMO. There is zero rationalizing anything here. There is no democratic candidate in this race that doesn't support both economic and social justice (unless recent republican turned democrat Chafee enters the race).
What a bunch of crap.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)save from what you typed.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and the 99%. Not all Democrats support economic equality. For example the unions are at odds with those Democrats that support the TPP. They, along with many others, believe it will negatively impact economic equality. Do you have something substantive to say or do you just limit yourself to "What a bunch of crap." posts?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Why is that? She has stated for years that CEOs are paid too much, and she has voted in favor of raising capital gains taxes. She just ripped on hedge fund tax dodges a few weeks ago. Where has she stated she is in favor of TPP? She voted against CAFTA and the CATO institute that LOVES the hell out of free trade agreements rated her at 17% on the issue of trade agreements.
Can you provide a specific vote or action on her part that supports your assertions?
You better get good at that, because I plan to call it out as BS when I see it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to not state an opinion on, or state whether she supports the agreement ... until there is an agreement.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the anti-HRC crowd are trickling in. (That is where I got it from)
They will be happy to provide a link.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)TPP had its origins in a smaller trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreement (colloquially, the Pacific-4). It took effect in 2006 and did not include the United States. In September 2008, the Bush Administration announced that the U.S. would enter negotiations to expand the Pacific 4 into the TPP. You could date the "start" of TPP to either of those events, which preceded Clinton's stint as Secretary of State.
The actual TPP negotiations, however, didn't begin until March of 2010. On the one hand, Clinton was then the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the lead role in the negotiations was taken by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative rather than by the Department of State. On the other other hand, it's certain that lengthy negotiations for a major international agreement would have involved the Secretary of State in a significant role. Clinton has pointed to the TPP in describing her tenure at State:
(from "Can Hillary Clinton step out of Bill's NAFTA shadow?" on CNN's website)
I'd say that "started it" is an overstatement but "played an important role from the beginning" would be justified.
Regardless of how you parse that point, it's clear that she was strongly supportive of the TPP. A recent Associated Press story reported:
(from "Campaigning Clinton has qualms about trade deal")
That "gold standard" quotation has been widely reported but it's easy enough to find other words of praise from her pre-campaign phase.
Evidently she doesn't read DU, or she would know that no one can possibly say anything remotely informative about the TPP until all the negotiations are concluded and a final agreement has been made public. At least, that's what we're told, often by Clinton supporters, whenever anyone here criticizes the TPP. Doubtless those posters will now all "trickle in" to denounce Clinton for praising an agreement that hadn't yet been finalized.
Then again, maybe they won't.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Have you read the book? I have. Do you know what her main concerns have been over the course of her career regarding trade agreements in the Asian market? I do. And she is absolutely correct in her concerns. I won't belabor it here since I have covered it in other posts in this thread. Doesn't convince me she is for the TPP, but it does convince me that her concerns are genuine and populist.
She has a good progressive record on trade agreements including voting against CAFTA as a senator. And her previous book makes it clear that she was against NAFTA as well (although not a senator at the time, of course).
You're awfully trusting of corporate media when it comes to making a case. One edited quote from her book and you're on board with the meme.
It's odd that Warren supports her if HRC is a TPP proponent, don't you think?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First, the quotation in which she called TPP "the gold standard" is not from her book. It's been very widely reported. (I just did a Google search for "Clinton TPP 'gold standard'" and got more than 300,000 hits.) Did she say it, or didn't she? And while we're on the subject, I could provide links (if I thought you would actually look at them) to other pro-TPP statements she's made. Are all of those quotations actually hoaxes by the evil corporate media (which are, presumably, part of a vast right-wing conspiracy promoting the candidacy of that longtime corporate darling, Bernie Sanders)?
As for the quotation from her book, if it was unfairly edited to give a false impression, please feel free to provide the full quotation. The point for which I cited that quotation was that, in writing her memoir, she didn't treat the TPP as something done solely by the USTR, about which the Secretary of State knew nothing except what she read in the newspaper each morning. Instead, she implied that she played a significant role in it while she was Secretary of State, which is hardly a surprising assertion. If she has in fact disclaimed any such involvement, I'd be interested in the evidence.
This part is truly funny:
Ludicrous assertions embedded in that one short sentence:
1. By signing a letter urging Clinton to run, Warren indicated "support" in the most common understanding of the term, i.e., that she endorses Clinton for the nomination and is already committing that she will vote for Clinton in the primary.
2. If Warren "supports" Clinton, that means that Warren agrees with each and every issue position that Clinton currently takes.
3. If Clinton as candidate currently takes a position that's less than wholehearted support for the TPP, then that proves that she's always taken that position and disproves any assertion that she once spoke favorably about it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)supports all Clinton's stands on policies."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)she says, not running and people ignore it.
might be a theme going on to take a look at.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)policies.
Seems to be a sore spot with some that there are so many people are desperate for Sen Warren to run for president.
The Populist Movement will continue whether or not Sen Warren runs. She will be a powerful force fighting for the 99% one way or the other.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
lark
(23,102 posts)He chose the all corporatist all the time delegates, he's the one pushing Fast Track, its his baby. Why arent you bashing him but instead are going after an intermediate instead of the boss?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)After taking a deep breath ... and, possibly, a relaxing adult beverage of your choice.
Maybe I should have used the sarcasm thingy.
JustAnotherGen
(31,827 posts)Shocked 1strong - that this turned away from the subject at hand. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that those that had sooooo much to say about economic justice (versus social justice ... which is the HRC proxy war), here ... have NOTHING to say about it, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026597470
Shocked I tell you!
Perhaps, someone with access (which I do not) can post this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026597470
Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277
It's membership general has a lot to say on the topic.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Most of your questions have already been answered numerous times here but I am always willing to do the research.
With regard to the TPP, according to Bloomberg Business Week: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p2
She is now officially running for president and she has not spoken out. I think she might be trying to see which way the wind is blowing.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She pressed for Asian countries to open their doors to US based companies. That creates jobs here (and is a populist thing to do). She has made numerous comments on currency manipulation in the Asian markets, even when she was in the Senate. That seems to be her main interest in the TPP. Further opening markets to US businesses is one of the State departments prime responsibilities.
Now I will say I am against the TPP, BUT the idea is that it would create more enforceable rules around currency manipulation that is currently occurring in Asian markets. Currency manipulation distorts trade flows by artificially lowering the cost of U.S. imports and raising the cost of U.S. exports, and that causes trade deficits and lost jobs in the country or countries that do not manipulate the currency.
If I thought they would actually enforce sections of any trade agreement that would stop this currency manipulation, I might be more inclined to be supportive as a voter. But as for HRC, she has been very consistent on the issue of currency manipulation and how it hurts American workers. The TPP is going to sail without or without US involvement. If the US can genuinely impact it to decrease the trade deficit that would be a good thing. But reasonable people can disagree on whether there is more good than bad to be had with US participation.
I think if you understood the issue better you would not be accusing HRC of being an oligarch. There is just nothing in her history that supports that kind of derision.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"I think if you understood the issue better " The problem is I am only hearing one side of this issue. The Progressives have lots of reasons to object and those in favor have provided nothing.
I think Sen Sanders supports the 99%. I think that Clinton may support the 99% for social issues, I don't believe she supports the 99% on economic issues. Sen Sanders has been for years discussing specific remedies including raising the SS cap. Clinton has been very quiet lately about specific remedies. Does she favor raising the SS cap?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And again, I will say I am NOT in favor of it. I just haven't seen the record of enforcing similar restrictions in previous trade agreements that would make me in favor of another one.
But you know what, I am a Democrat. And I pay attention to the actions and policy statements of our Democratic leaders and candidates. And I inform myself before calling people in my own party names.
Currency manipulation in China and Japan is a real issues that hurt workers in the US. I can definitely understand why Democratic politicians would want to do SOMETHING to address that issue, ESPECIALLY given the clear fact that the TPP is going to happen with or without US involvement.
But that's just me.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You say "there are legitimate reasons to be in favor of the TPP." None of those reasons are anywhere I can find. Why are those that favor the TPP being so silent about the issue. They are certainly speaking out against those that oppose.
Most of the document has nothing to do with trade. Fast Track is designed to ram the document thru with little or no discussion.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... you shared. But you so clearly, painfully do not understand the economic issues associated with trade. And because you do not you automatically ascribe nefarious motives to Democratic leaders that do.
As I said, reasonable people can disagree on whether or not there is more good or bad in it. But it's silly to think, given the records of both Obama and HRC, that they are cheering on more economic inequality.
Can you explain why Warren said she is glad HRC is running for President, and she thinks HRC is terrific if HRC is such an fan of oligarchy? Does that make sense to you?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"If you understood the issue". and this "But you so clearly, painfully do not understand the economic issues associated with trade." Can't you present your case w/o deriding me?
No one has brought out any arguments that favor the TPP, yet you deride me for not understanding. You fail to address the concerns that trade is a small fraction of this "agreement".
"Can you explain why Warren said she is glad HRC is running for President, and she thinks HRC is terrific if HRC is such an fan of oligarchy? Does that make sense to you? " I wouldn't expect Sen Warren to say anything else until she decides to run herself. She is a good Democrat and will support HRC. That certainly doesn't mean she supports Clinton's views on letting Wall Street run amok.
Clinton in 2002 demonstrated that she will support the Republicons in a time of crisis.
Clinton and her husband have amassed an amazing amount of wealth, one hundred million dollars, in the last 15 years putting them in the highest of the 1%'ers.
Clinton has very close ties with Goldman-Sachs and told them she thought banksters were being picked on.
Clinton is expected to raise close to two billion dollars to assure she gets elected. This money comes from the 1%. They view it as an investment.
Clinton has the interest of the neocons because of her hawkish foreign policy.
Sen Sanders is a man of the people.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If I don't know something about an issue I try to inform myself. And I respect people that do the same. What I don't do is jump to uninformed conclusions for lack of knowledge.
Second, HRC has not come out in favor of the TPP. That is simply false. She has voiced concerns (for over a decade) about currency manipulation in Asian markets that disadvantages American workers. And she is objectively correct about that. THAT is a real problem, and not a "small fraction of the agreement" but quite possibly the major driving force for the US to inject themselves into it. I can assure you I would definitely respect your disfavor of the TPP if you realized that. As it is, we are both against it. I have stated why. You have not. Whatever.
Third, Warren has been very, very, very clear that she is not running. She has not been shy about criticizing Obama, so I don't know why she would turn into a "good democrat" suddenly when it comes to HRC.
Forth, do you have a shred of actual objective evidence that HRC's view is that we should let Wall Street run amok? There is absolutely NONE in her senate voting record. In fact her senate voting record and her policy statements indicate just the opposite.
Fifth, she has categorically stated she made a mistake in voting for the war. Multiple times in fact. I give her a pass on that because the Bushies lied their asses off to congress AND because she was the senator from the state that sustained the brunt of the attacks on 9/11.
Sixth, what does her having money now have to do with anything? Do you think Warren is poor or something? Obama? They never had a pot to piss on until Bill left office. And republican investigations left them millions in debt to attorney fees. I make a lot of money too. That doesn't mean I am not an avowed liberal. I am - in every sense of the word.
Seventh, so what if she knows people on Wall Street? That hasn't stopped her from blasting them for decades. There are lots of Democrats on Wall Street. Every Democratic candidate will get money from Wall Street. They have ALWAYS been big donors to Democrats, because Wall Street is in NYC, which is the most liberal city in the US.
Eighth, ANY democratic candidate will have to raise billions for the presidential election if they want to win. ANY! That's the Citizen's United world we live in. Do you want the dem candidate to just lay down and die instead of trying to raise as much or more than the republican candidate for president?
Ninth, yes she is hawkish on foreign policy. You got one out of 9. Congratulations! 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)social justice can't be separated from economic justice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While I believe that holds true for some, in differing degrees ... it is patently false for others.
Let me ask you: What social justice issues must straight, white, Christian, males fight to attain? And, what do they lose, if they fail to win the fight?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)to gun down more white, Christian, hero males or randomly pull over and shakedown more of them or to deprive them of control of their bodies or any such things seeking some equilibrium of tit for tat.
I hear what you said but what from there? It's not fair?!? No shit. That is what has been what is up every inch of the way no matter what front.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Hey, it's not easy responding to a post on an iphone during a smoke break.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Nailed the MO of this OP.
Thank you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)hyperbolic nonsense.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Wall Street.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)You know working people,like the quarry workers i work with we all have retirements in Wall Street.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and not de-regulate to allow the banksters to rob them blind.
The glass-steagall act was to prevent the banksters from stealing from those very investors you refer to. They relied on their elected reps to protect them. Instead they were sold out by Pres Clinton.
Support the only truly Populist candidate: https://berniesanders.com/volunteer/
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tied up with Goldman-Sachs and the corrupt banksters. We need to regulate Wall Street or we will see more of our people losing their savings and retirements.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)the original point of my repsonse is that many times, the majority forces upon the minorities the chocie between social justice and economic justice, and then acts like they did us a favor. This goes beyond the civil war the democrats are having between Clinton vs anybody but clinton, but about the fact that BOTh are denied minorities, and the minorties are yelled at as if their crime was not to choose between one or the other quickly enough, as opposed to the fact that the majority had NO intentions to deliver either.
There are plenty of threada about HRC/no HRC, but frankly, I wish 2strongblackman's points were not buried under so much noise and sauce. It only shows that even when we do to try speak out, for ourselves, with something to say, someone will come along and yank the mic out of our hands, and not even bother to care about what we wanted to say. There is a blindness to the fact that, even on DU, there is a hierarchy of voice, from "most listened to" to "shut up and stay out of the grownups way" and then when those of us relegated to the kids table get pissed, we get yelled at again and told "see, isn't this table nice."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And frankly, all of this just serves as proof that the majority had NO intentions to deliver either.
Great post.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)There is the notion that money makes everything OK. That is, if you have a good job and the lifestyle that goes with a good income, the other problems will not bother you. As it applies to black Americans, the theory says racial discrimination is easy to shrug off if you have economic security. It also says money protects you from discrimination, so you won't be hassled if you're doing OK. This theory seems to apply, to some extent, to everything except police activity. The police just can't seem to ease up on black men, so driving a BMW and wearing a nice suit might not give you a pass. I suppose the police are so afraid of black men, they react instinctively, and we have seen little improvement over the years, so I don't know where this is going.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or when you get keys tossed to you outside of the restaurant, while you are waiting for your vehicle ... Or, when someone demands to speak to "the boss" because you couldn't possibly be the boss, no matter what your name plate says ... Or, ...
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Of course, that stuff still happens, and probably will for some time to come. The theory says it will bother you a lot less if you have money and status. Like any theory, it's not exactly air-tight, but there may be something to it. Most black folks I know get annoyed when such things happen, but then they laugh about it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Real life experience of the Theory ...
What do you say ... how do you explain to your 7 year old daughter, why she was the only of her classmates NOT invited to the pool party, held at the country club, she can see from her back yard.
No amount of money or status makes that conversation any easier.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)I was just 7 years old when I became aware of my own white privilege. My mother had died a few months earlier. From what I remember she was just wonderful - loving and kind to everyone. Even after leaving my father because of violent abuse she still never uttered a negative word about him to my sister or me.
My father was the polar opposite of my mom. A card carrying Bircher who hated my mother's Russian family, calling them commies, and pretty much hating everyone, it seemed, especially people of color.
Up until then I didn't understand much about the people he raged against in the most vulgar of terms. Having lived most of my life up until then in rural Connecticut the only people I really knew were my many family members - cousins, uncles, aunts, and classmates from the same area. Pretty much all lily white.
So after my mom died we ended up in California, alone and away from any family, in my father's care. There were so many sad, despondent, and sometimes terrifying days with him, I remember.
It was back to school time and he took us out to shop for new school clothes. I was a small, skinny, awkward little girl. Small enough to hide under the racks of hanging clothes. There was a little black girl doing the same. Disappearing under the clothes. We played and giggled under those racks. It was like finding a soul mate. I was shocked. All the things my dad had told me.... I never imagined a little girl just like me could be one of the monsters he had raged about.
So here's the rub - thinking I had misunderstood what he had been telling me, I pointed this out to my father. She was just like me. A skinny little girl, with dark skin, happily playing under the racks of clothes with me. Not a monster. Not threatening. Just an awkwardly skinny little girl like me.
I got into a lot of trouble for what I said to him. A lot. Ended up with a fat lip in the store. But all I could think was OMG, OMG, that poor little girl. She did nothing wrong. She was just like me and my father hated her. Others (he tried to convince me) hated her too because her skin was dark. I remember wondering why I was so lucky. Why she wasn't. My life changed that day. I can't even define it completely. But I learned that my father was wrong. So, so wrong.
My heart aches for your dear little girl. Please, hug her for me when you have the chance. Life is just so unfair.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with the reality of your daughter.
secondary, a parent watching the reality of your daughter.
we, too, could see the country club. and my boys were a member, fond memories every time they looked out those windows.
just to let you know. that though i said nothing. it was profound. and made me think. more. and again.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)need to wake up black and walk in those shoes for a while.
Feeling much anger and sadness at this. We've always instilled in our son an awareness of the odd kid out, whether isolated by race, physical ability, popularity, etc.
His circle of close friends tells me that we did a pretty good job.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)They're pissed off because they are constantly harassed by police on a daily basis and their treatment by police is clearly racist policy. Walking while black, driving while black, being black in public, those are all the police need to harass them.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Rawlings-Blake and Batts have done a lot to improve the police in Baltimore. Don't get me wrong--the BPD are far from where they should be. But there is certainly much less police harassment now than there was under O'Malley. The violence going on right now is partly being done by genuine criminals who ought to be the subject of police attention. How many people who are righteously indignant about police mistreatment are out there looting and destroying is unclear. As for the peaceful protesters, they rock.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)So I agree.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i say the same for our women and girls. their lives proceeds the $
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)once the cameras are turned off, it's back to business.
I will love to see how these pundits interact once the cameras are turned off.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I can see why people are drawn to economic issues though. For one thing it seems like there are clear programs that could help deal with economic justice - fixing the tax code, reinstating the safety net for the unemployed, regulating corporations and wall street, a new WPA to rebuild our infrastructure and give jobs to people who need them. Probably many others I am not thinking of; while I don't necessarily expect any of those programs to be implemented with Congress as Republicanoid as it is, they are clear programs.
While there are some proposals to help out on social justice issues - for example setting up a national review of police departments with some real teeth to go after those that have a pattern of racist behavior - a lot of it is hard to conceptualize of what could be done. Add to that that white people people benefit from racial injustice, and any attempt to solve the problem of social justice has to address white privilege - I can see why people think that is a harder fix than economic justice.
Bryant
cali
(114,904 posts)By definition, people of color who are poor and marginalized are people who are kept oppressed.
<snip>
“That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night’s property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good, hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state,” he continued.
<snip>
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/orioles-vp-john-angelos-defends-freddie-gray-protesters-article-1.2201887
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not being stalked and hunted by law enforcement to has adopted an occupation force mentality, is about social justice, not economic justice. Not being the oil to flows through the kindergarten to prison pipeline, is about social justice, not economic justice.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)They stop pulling them over when driving their Bentley's in Beverly Hills, right?
They stop following them around in Barney's when sweater shopping, right?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)nor, Oprah's or any number of high incomed, high status Black folks.
But what do we know ... we just live it.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)White privilege is the cause of all this.
Way to easy for people who have NO CLUE what they are talking about, to tell YOU what YOUR experience is.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)But even THAT is coming from ME, white guy
I dont know what some people will do to YOU if you do that
so dont listen to me
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(129,045 posts)
Touche!
Number23
(24,544 posts)flat out in your face racism because as a black man of xx years of age, you simply must not be able to understand even the things that affect you every single day.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)They'll tell you about how they were poor growing up or how it's the 99% who are getting fucked over by the 1%, so we're all in this together.
No, it's fucking not!
And no, we're NOT in this together.
This is about race, plain and simple.
And no, we ought not shut up or keep silent no matter what they say and no matter how much their feelings are hurt.
Hats off to you for starting this thread and encouraging discussion, brother.
Don't back down!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's comparable with cities like Seattle and Portland.
It's also got a lower poverty rate than the national urban average.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Economic and civil rights are intrinsically tied together. Money = power. Without economic justice, the oligarchy holds all the power, and the only way the oligarchy can hold onto that power is to quash civil rights. Without economic justice, there can be no social justice.
We are now seeing this very thing happen before our eyes. As money is redistributed from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, civil rights are being systematically eroded. The civil rights act is under heavy attack as is the voting rights act. Eroding those acts is the only way the rich can hold onto power. We have watched this happen for a century in third world countries. Those countries are run by the oligarchy, and they have almost no civil rights.
We are seeing this with NAFTA and the TPP. As manufacturing jobs go overseas, inner city residents have fewer and fewer jobs and wages plummet. As wages plummet, the oligarchy gets richer and more powerful. As the oligarchy gains power, they attack civil rights as a means of holding onto that power.
This is the dilemma of those who tout right wing economic policies, while pushing for civil rights (aka the 'Third Way®'). Their economics guarantee the erosion of civil rights because the economics they espouse empower the oligarchy. As the oligarchy gains more economic power, civil rights must be quashed in order for them to stay in power.
Hence lies the cognitive dissonance of those who buy into such Libertarian thinking. They are trapped in a catch 22.
Another good example: In the 1950s the top marginal rate was raised to 90%. Rather than take their money out as highly taxable profits, businesses reinvested that money into their companies which made the businesses grow, thus creating jobs. They would later take their money out in the form of equity, which was taxed at a much lower rate. The rich became much richer, but in a way that spread the money around to the middle class, and in a way that empowered the middle class politically. Paralleling this, were the civil rights gains which began in the 50s and culminated in the early 1960s with the civil rights and voting rights acts.
When we hold the power, wages rise and civil rights are addressed. When they hold the power, wages and rights plummet.
It is all tied together, you cannot separate them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What Social Justice issue must a straight, white, Christian, male fight for? And what will be lost if he loses that fight?
The fact that there are few, if any, should put lie to the "Economic and civil rights are intrinsically tied together" argument. Right?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...and anyone who supports them, they are brainwashed and fearful idiots.
Those same brainwashed fools held the power a long time ago, and we for the most part broke out of that mold from the 50s - 1980. It can happen again. It has to happen again, because we didn't finish what we started then. The way to do that is stop supporting right wing economic policies, strengthen unions, and get our kids into college.
At the core of it lies higher education. Education = empowerment. Empowerment gives us the means to take it all back.
Those hopeless 'straight, white, christian, male' fools will eventually be left in the dust. Some will step into the light, but most of them will be left behind. Fuck them. We will fight on in spite of their sorry asses.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)straight, white, christian, males, of whatever political persuasion - even liberals and progressives.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Not sure what you mean.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Everything is tied together. Social justice affects everyone, regardless of skin color. Some it affects more than others, but it inevitably affects everyone.
And those who fight for social justice for others do so out of empathy. Empathy is what makes us human. Not everything is done out of personal self interest.
Everything is tied in together and affects us all. Social justice for minorities makes our society a better place to live for everyone, not just those minorities.
Economic justice helps everyone. You may be surprised, but being white does not automatically make life rosy. When education is attacked, everyone is negatively affected, even white people. When the oligarchy steals money everyone gets poorer, even white people. And on, and on... Minorities feel the brunt of this shit more than most white people, but it affects everyone. Some white people are just too stupid to see it. Those people are hopeless and should be castigated.
You have to realize who your allies are and embrace them and not fight them under the assumption they only believe in their own self interest or skin color. To do otherwise is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face, aka shooting yourself in the foot, IMHO.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Just guessing here but it seems to me these guys might have a few things to say about economic injustice.
:large
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I do not understand this fight about how it's one or the other. It's both.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)a white guy.
I feel much the same way about the Democrats support of gay rights while toeing the line for the wealthy on economic issues.
How much will you enjoy your gay marriage if you and your spouse have to live under a bridge?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)equal protection from discrimination in the workplace? 29 States have no such protections and the Federal government offers none. So what the fuck about the gay right to a job? As it is now, in most of the country you and your not spouse are already economically disadvantaged and limited in options compared to your straight and 'real married' counterparts. So no marriage, no job.
What was your point again?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Just sayin'...
treestar
(82,383 posts)like everyone else under the bridge. Bad times and good time economically always occur. Why shouldn't people have their rights in bad times?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)or implied one was more important than the other, so I opposed that. See definition of "discussion board."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Bunch of elitist cowards. Big talk.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because living in that mansion in the gated community, alone, is better than living, in a shack with the spouse you love.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Money trumps not just peace but everything including orientation.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)also gay. What are they supposed to be to me? I am in fact and indeed a member of the very Union organization that was the first to boycott them in response to their idiocy. Not sure how I'm supposed to be in any way looking to them, associated with them or answering for them.
Now, if you'd like YOU could attempt to answer the question I asked. None of the straight folks making that assertion nor those like you defending that bullshit are even capable of attempting a bad answer. Because you know how vile and stupid it looks to say 'your silly rights, what you need is a job' to people who are legally discriminated against in employment. It's hard core right wing, actually.
But it is seriously cowardly to make such uninformed assertions and then run away when confronted with a tough question. It's a fuck of a lot of arrogant to say the shit that posters said. My point was about as valid as it gets.
And the best you could do is bring up some gays in the news to hang around my neck. What century do you live in anyway?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is not the first to do that. It's old and tired.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)Some have figured it out though, at least in regards to the gay couple who hosted Cruz:
Apparently he's Jewish 1st, gay 2nd
"Good" Jews (but really still "bad" and 'traitorous", but "bad" gays. So, in their case, economic superiority doesn't shield them from anti-Semitic, and even homophobic, assertions. After all, all gays should toe the party line. Personally, I found their sponsoring a Cruz party disgusting, but the expectation gays should act a certain way or they are "bad gays" makes me ill. It goes to demonstrate, even when economics are equal, socially we are not. See, they are gay so they should be all about GLBT rights, but if they were, and were supporting the "wrong" democratic candidate, well, then they would still be "bad" because they don't care about economic issues and prefer to put their own social equality over economics.
ETA: The above comment was written at DU, but not by the poster up above who was asked the question by Bluenorthwest.
qwlauren35
(6,148 posts)'your silly rights, what you need is a job'
That's someone trying to tell me what is more important... sorry, that's for me to judge.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Possible terms.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Pursuing social justice means a lowering of condition, in terms of race; whereas, pursuing economic justice means uplifting conditions.
Interesting, but completely unintentional, of course.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you said:
Did you not?
The status quo has it that where while we may, both, be in card-board boxes, the white guys box is triple-walled with a top; whereas, mine is single walled, with a hole in it.
But, more to the point, for PoC (and women) social justice has an economic component, as well, that is unrelated to the 1%/income inequality issue. Specifically, the fact that PoC earn approximately 27% less than comparable white households (23% for women) ... fixing the inequality between you/me and the 1%, does nothing to fix the income disparity between you AND me.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and if we don't hold Democrats feet to the fire on economic justice, we will end up there with or without equal rights.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)as they were with slavery.
Were blacks held as slaves primarily because of racism or to economically exploit them?
Likewise, I wonder if freedmen got their forty acres and a mule whether it would have been as easy for the South to take Jim Crow to the extremes they did.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)For PoC and women and the LGBT Community and other "Others", yes ... they are inextricably linked; and/but, the farther one is from being the/a straight, white, Christian, male, the stronger less the link. So we find wealthy and poor PoC and women and the LGBT Community and other "Others" denied, both, social justice AND economic Justice (i.e., intra-working class wage disparities).
But the closer one is to being the/a straight, white, Christian, male, the link becomes lessened to a point of singular (personal) concern.
Both ... See the above.
Are you kidding? At the turn of the century (the late 1800s into the early 1900s), my kin owned far more than 40 acres and a mule, and lost it all BECAUSE there was no social justice.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)But, I agree with you 1SBM, the primary focus should be on the rampant social justice.
To those who are more concerned about the larger picture; I'd like to point out by positively dealing with the social disparity also addresses the economic issues.
To put it another way, the war of economic injustice is won by winning the battle of racial equality, the battle of sexual equality, etc
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the REAL concern seems to be ... winning the racial and sexual and heterosexism equality battles means losing the advantage that so many of the economic justice first fighters were born to have.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)The modern equivalent of "separate but equal", and fuck a bunch of that shit.
Just equal is fine, not glittery, capitalized, italicized, or emboldened; just plain old simple conjoined equal.
Simple is good, easy to keep track of.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)me saying that I want what you were born into, so that when we attain economic equality, I am included in that, is divisive bullshit?
The opposite of that is we fight, together for economic justice, that does not include me, as the status quo has me behind at the gate.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I think it's an indication that some people don't really care about Baltimore because their privilege allows them to ignore it. However, that doesn't mean they won't use it to try and further their own cause that directly impacts them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Funny that.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)they miss dealing with the factors that the rich summoned into being to hide their moneygrabbing, like racism, sexism and homophobia.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)people without economic justice.
As a white person, that is very clear to me. Because it is not the color black that causes the discrimination. It is the history of poverty and subjugation. If black people had come from Africa and claimed the US territory as their own and then imported white slaves from Europe, the white people would have no justice, neither social nor economic justice.
It is the fact of the subjugation of slavery, imposing and justifying centuries of exclusion from decent education and decent jobs regardless of ability, that causes the social injustice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Discrimination is the history of (in this case) race based subjugation, without respect to poverty. The wealthy Black person was/is subject to the same subjugation as the poor Black person ... even though the wealthy Black person has the resources to remedy, in some cases.
What? I think that this narrative plays, large, in the white narrative ... "If 'they' were ever on top, we'd better look out because they would do to us, what we did/do to them."
And what was the basis of that slavery?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)development between Europe and Africa at the time the slaves were introduced into the US. Europeans had the military, maritime and organizational ability to go to Africa, capture people and enslave them. If you read the history of Europe, for example, of the British Isles, you find the pattern of a developed, warring nation enslaving people in a conquered country. It is repeated over and over. It is not unique to Europeans.
It is not a question of the nature of white or black people to make slaves of "the other," people who are different from themselves. It is the nature of people.
You say this:
What? I think that this narrative plays, large, in the white narrative ... "If 'they' were ever on top, we'd better look out because they would do to us, what we did/do to them."
It is in the nature of human beings to identify with a specific group -- the family, the tribe, the nation, the race, the club, the economic group, the religious group, etc. and discriminate against those perceived not to be part of the group. This is a human tendency that we must strive constantly to recognize and overcome, regardless what race, religion, ethnicity, etc. we identify with.
When you speak of the "white narrative" and, as I understand what you are saying, differentiate it from the "human narrative," in my view, you are embracing a reverse racism. You are saying that black people are inherently unlikely, perhaps incapable of the kind of horrible racist behavior that whites have shown to black people.
I ask: Are we disagreeing on the following issues?
Are you claiming that white people are inherently more prone to racism than black people?
If so, are you claiming that white people are more prone to racism because that's the way white people are?
Or are you claiming that white people are at least viewed as more racist and perhaps are more racist?
(I don't have an opinion on whether whites are more racist than blacks inherently. I only see that people and because we are dominant culturally and economically, white people in many places in the US (and not so much in California where white people have the most economic power but are not really in the majority) are free to demonstrate racism that other races dare not demonstrate.
I hope that I am wrong, but I read in your posts that you feel that white people by virtue of being white, are more born more prone to racism than black people. I gather that you do not see racism as something that is learned and that can be learned by anyone. I see it as a learned response to a particular characteristic in another person or in another group of people perceived as different from oneself for any of a number of reasons.
I believe that a numerically and culturally dominant group is more likely to discriminate against a numerically and culturally less dominant group.
Black people in the US are numerically and culturally less dominant at this time. That is why they are discriminated against. When the Irish first began to come to the US, they were discriminated against. Jewish people look no different from Europeans, but they were discriminated against in a horrible way in Europe over many centuries.
Time may change the numerical advantage of white people in the US. But as for the cultural dominance of white people, it is based on the economic power of certain groups of white people, and the assumption about the economic power of a white person as opposed to a person of color. That assumption is deeply ingrained in the psyche of Americans. It certainly does not apply in every case but is statistically pretty well supported. White people as a rule are most probably wealthier than black people. There are exceptions, important exceptions on both sides. Poor white people benefit from this assumption in some situations. But it can cost them dearly as a poor white person can starve just as quickly as a poor black person.
Black culture does not divide white people from black people as much as it did at one time, but there is still a big divide especially among older people.
In conclusion: I read from what you say that you assume that white people are inherently more prone to racism than black people. I strongly disagree. It is the result of history that the reality is that white people have the upper hand today. It is not an inherent tendency in white people to discriminate based on race.
I'm interested in your response. Thanks.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While it is true,
What is unique to Western slavery is the racial basis for the industry. And it makes economic sense ... intra-European slavery had an inherent bug, that was solved through establish the industry on a racial basis ... the run-away European slave could blend in with the rest of the population, the African slave (or freeman) could not.
If so, are you claiming that white people are more prone to racism because that's the way white people are?
Or are you claiming that white people are at least viewed as more racist and perhaps are more racist?
This will not surprise you; but, I am saying that Black people, in this society, are incapable of being racist, as racism denotes a racial bias/bigotry plus institution/culture power. Black people, can, however, be racially biased and bigoted; but, lack the institution/culture power to benefit from that bigotry.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I would add, "at this time," I agree with you.
But racism is not inherent in one race.
And I assure you, for many generations, one European group was just as prejudiced or discriminated just as strongly against some other European group as white people do against black people in the US.
Wars were fought over these differences. The other was condemned as stupid or cruel or whatever. Very often religious differences resulted in horrible wars, killing and discrimination. It wasn't just Jewish people. It was Catholics against Protestants, Christians against Celts and Druids.
That is history. That is human nature.
I have to add that we have only to look at the racism within Rwanda and other countries in Africa as well as the religious wars in Africa to know that this terrible discrimination is not unique to the white race.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the rest is fantasy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Nor is ISIS.
It is important that we recognize the universality and the universal danger of discrimination regardless of what it is based on.
They gypsies who died under Hitler's Third Reich would probably agree with me that discrimination and hatred of the other is not necessarily race based. People find excuses to hate someone who is different from themselves. It makes the hater feel so secure and smug and proud to be a part of his "group." It just feels so good to be part of a group that is differentiated from the other and, of course, according to the bigots in the group, so superior to the other group, if not on the basis of some strange idea of racial superiority, then on the basis of some other grounds for superiority, even being the object of the discrimination of the other.
And so, we have to be forever vigilant of what it is in ourselves that identifies so strongly with a religion, a race, whatever, and that makes us feel afraid of or superior to those who do not qualify as members of our "special" group.
Fact is that Americans who have ancestors who have been in this country for many generations have no claim to ethnic or racial "purity" assuming such a thing exists. The human race is said to have started in Africa, which means that the most racist white person may owe his existence to Africa. Racism is just the desire to belong to a group defined by skin color and perhaps a few other physical characteristics, real or imagined, and puff oneself up by claiming to be superior to those who do not belong to that group. Any characteristic will do: I'm blond. I'm brunette. I'm Christian. I'm . . . . . . . . It goes on and on. The hatred and the arrogance, the cruelty, the effects of this constantly recurring human pattern of prejudice are what must be fought.
The economic basis of slavery prevented most black Americans from becoming equal. The lack of the possibility of owning property, of obtaining education in the early years of black culture in the US, many factors that were and are basically economic make overcoming racism very difficult. I believe, however, that the economic bases for racism would be much easier to end than the social ones.
My neighborhood, for example, is very mixed, and there is little if any discrimination. But that is California. We just live with people of all races and religions and take it for granted. There are still parts of California, parts of Los Angeles, in which that is not yet the case. I feel pretty certain that a lack of discrimination will become the rule here if not in the rest of the US.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And I don't have the luxury of building hypotheticals, about stuff that does/has not affect(ed) me.
I, with all due respect, wonder if your Black neighbors would agree with your assessment.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)California is not immune.
RUSH got his start in Fresno.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)conservative in a state of liberal.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That may explain our different views.
My children grew up in a different society in which it was not black people but another group of people who had to suffer discrimination. That may influence my view on this.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and how were Black people treated?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and america's slavery system was and is recognized as having been one of the cruelest slavery systems of 'modern' times. And the hate and racism spawned by that system is STILL with us almost 200 years later. Please spare me. You and your Rwanda, Celts, druid, christian and religious distraction BS just want to deny the hate based upon the color of ones skin that is growing, again, in THIS racist culture. Have fun in your dream world, eyes are opening, I hope you'll open yours, along with you mind, soon. No more to do with you. No point.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)from themselves. Race is one excuse to hate.
JustAnotherGen
(31,827 posts)But all of the discussions at DU re Economic Equality have only focused on the US. We have few a members who write passionately about global poverty - but from discussions about the TPP to Social Security and wages - the discussion has been solely focused on the US. To bring up other countries as anything other than an economic foe - your point will get lost. Certainly extreme poverty exists in Vietnam (party to TPP) but I've only seen the focus on the impact to daily life at DU.
We have post operational reviews of NAFTA's impact to Mexican farm workers - but nothing look forward - that I've seen. It could exist - but I haven't seen it.
That said - I'm a bit of a student re Rwanda - not just the genocide - but the history under the wide lens. The Hutu, Tutsi and Twa had differences for hundreds of years that never resulted in such blood shed. It was a European country desperate to create a class of people who were privileged based on the tone of their skin and head measurements as a last grasp at Colonial dominance that created the racial Construct. If you start in the late 1980's and end with Paul Kagame basically telling Bush to shove off, don't you dare invade my country, our Democracy can't "look like" yours -much gets lost.
Though I loved the way Kagame 
called Bush out for his behavior in Iraq! Nailed him with the imperialism and colonialism shade. . He was right - the RPF coming over the hill was dramatically different than our actions in Iraq - and well - Afghanistan. Though it looks like the religious sects in Iraq (three major - see the correlation?) are gonna do it (Rwanda type genocide) again.
heaven05
(18,124 posts) heaven05
(18,124 posts)that causes racism, discrimination and bigotry........that analogous BS about Africans and Europeans is putrid. Geez...where did you come from with that stuff?
jeepers
(314 posts)It is about poverty
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)Racism IS about one's skin color, among other descriptors! Classism is about poverty.
jeepers
(314 posts)Maybe I should have said prejudice towards the black man is about poverty.
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)However, your comment is still incorrect. Poverty is but one result of racism against blacks, not the other way around.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No ... after re-reading my edit, that doesn't word, either. There is no redeeming your statement without a complete re-write.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)about HATING the color of another persons skin. Period. Poverty is something that has nothing to do with white racist hate. Black poverty is a condition brought about, usually, by racism. Racist hate of another person because of the COLOR of their skin is a choice. Period.
1monster
(11,012 posts)They are both part of the whole.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)to hawk New Dem talking points to distract the public away from critical economic issues (i.e., Wall St. rigging the game against Americans) by instead gesturing wildly at social issues, as if there's a choice between the two of them which needs to be made.
I can't think of a single black leader who isn't as much interested in economic justice as they are about police brutality, etc.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Me using the riots to hawk New Dem talking points to distract the public from critical economic issues?
Wow. I have two words that if I wrote, would get me locked out of my own thread.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
sheshe2
(83,772 posts)I hear you loud and clear.
Great Op. 1SBM, I couldn't agree with you more.
What some fail to see is social justice is about our very lives. Our lives! Some of us are dying here. You, your men and boys are being hunted down. Every 28 days a black person is murdered by police. Me, women are dying for lack of healthcare because the GOP is shutting down "abortion" clinics. That is not the clinics main function, it is about family planning, preventative care and so much more. LGBT, they are beaten, vilified and not allowed to marry the one they love.
So in the end, we need both. They go hand in hand. They are equal issues and should be treated equally.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I hate to "+1"a response to my post; but ...
After much consideration, I must reject this frame ... as it is insufficient and inaccurate.
Social Justice is only inseparable from economic justices for those that are born into possession of that social justice.
I have asked a number of times in this thread (though I am not asking it specifically of you):
What social justices issues must a straight, white, Christian male fight to attain? And, what is lost, if they are unsuccessful?
This points to the fallacy of their argument.
,
sheshe2
(83,772 posts)What social justices issues must a straight, white, Christian male fight to attain? And, what is lost, if they are unsuccessful?
Okay, haven't been home from work long and I am tired. I will take a stab at it as a white woman.
They do not know the losses we have suffered. They don't have an inkling of the true disrespect that we have suffered. You said here that you have seen people laugh to cover their pain. That is so true, if we didn't we just break down and cry. We stand in this world, souls bared at times saying this is not about you, it is about us. Please look at us.
So,
Ours! He needs to get off his high horse and fight for ours, hey, he has nothing to lose and much to gain if we win. None of us can do it alone, no group can do this alone. I have said this time and time again here. You take a stand now, because we are not so many years away from no longer being a White America.
According to this 2043 is the year
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043?lite
He needs to know that he will reap what he sows~
Not enough of an answer, best that I can do tonight.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)(which you have revealed in the past), and are likely far wealthier than most of the "straight, white, Christian males" you are hoisting up in strawman fashion , I can see why you're trying to relegate the issue of black people's economic plight as "secondary".
Believe me -- you've indeed demonstrated an interest in the topic of "social justice" on these boards -- including "social justice" as regards defending those poor beleaguered (mostly white) Wall Streeters who have torched the lives of many hard-working Americans -- including that of many hard-working black Americans:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025584456#post10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026038915#post8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026038915#post17
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025967492#post6
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what a silly silly argument for this black man, who makes more than others, to gripe about that.
really?
this is your fuckin argument on a democratic board?
he should just count his blessings he can look out the window and see the club.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Served up 4 heaping plates of crow in a row.
Nicely done.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)None of it would even suggest that I have any sympathy for bankers ... I just know what prevents economic crimes (and jail ain't it) ... I know that people in real life, don't normally take jobs to make political statements, unless it is the job of politician ... and I want people that know something about complex banking transaction to be the ones regulating bank transaction.
Now ... If any of that sounds/looks remotely like "crow ... well ...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and, Yes ... according to the BLS, I (my household earns) more than approximately 92% of the population. And ...?
I fight harder for the economic interests of Black folks harder than you ever will (which wouldn't take much because, I doubt your efforts extend further than writing "MAD" on the internet); but, it is my life's experience (and yes, my wealth) that informs me that my having money means little to those seeking to oppress me and giving Black people of lesser means will not shield them from that which keeps them poor(er).
Frankly, I don't care about jailing the banksters ... my legal background informs me that jailing them will do nothing to stop the crimes they commit, nor will it provide justice for their victims. I far more support, and advocate, taking every penny that they, and their immediate family has, requiring them to work (on penalty of prison), and taking that money, too ... taking everything above what would disqualify them for public assistance, until the victim(s) are made whole.
That is my preferred prosecutorial action for the banks, as it would prevent the future crimes because it gets to the "why" of the crime, AND it would serve justice ... not just punishment.
Now ... back to the question you call a strawman; but, points directly to the B.S. you call an argument ... What social justices issues must a straight, white, Christian male fight to attain? And, what is lost, if they are unsuccessful?
If you can't answer it, than social justice and economic justice are NOT inseparable ... for folks that seem to have no problem trying to tell me to wait for what they were born into
AND, another than ... You being poor(er) ... tsk, sucks to be you; but, we know what was NOT the cause of your poverty!
.
I am not am far more wealthy than
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Start with the police murder of a young black man. Black lives matter. This isn't about arguing other points with people who start there. You've got to start there. Otherwise, you're just picking fights with people who start there.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)But the OP doesn't share that point of view.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because the issues ARE, in fact, mutually exclusive; when, only one applies to you because you attained the other by birth.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)That's the plain truth.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)That society doesn't achieve it is a serious cultural problem. It is difficult to imagine a new, effective legal solution to this cultural problem.
In contrast, it is a matter of law and policy that we are not afforded economic equality, in fact economic equality is considered a bad thing. This bad policy and bad law creates even worse cultural problems.
If there were more jobs for the residents of Baltimore, and if the individuals in the applicant pool weren't burdened with untenable debts (i.e. child support owed to the state) rendering employment a pointless exercise, the social problems would have less toehold, illicit employment would be less attractive and relationships between the community and the cops would improve.
When the only viable employment is illegal, relationships with the cops are bound to be poor.
The core problem, the root cause, is economic inequality. That is the reason that we can't culturally achieve what our laws already demand.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)During the 1930s and 1940s, many union members were promised economic justice in return for social peace. The vast majority of these union members were white. These white workers DID receive economic justice in the form of higher wages, retirement plans, more vacation time, and limited say in working conditions.
But to receive these benefits the unions had to purge themselves of any radical members such as Communists and Socialists. Thus any movement for social justice had to be sacrificed for the economic gains.
But the trade off was illusory and temporary, as the Presidency of Ronald Reagan showed. Beginning with the PATCO strike, union members were shown how any economic gains could be wiped out. Capitalists took back the higher wages, stole the retirement money, and generally have succeeded from 1980 until 2015 in wiping out most of the gains that were won with so much struggle.
How did the capitalists do this? They did it by playing the blame game. White workers were told that black people were to blame because welfare payments were too costly. Even though more whites receive welfare than blacks, only black people can be "welfare queens", a favorite Reagan phrase. Mexican workers were to blame for stealing jobs that white people formerly had, like in the formerly unionized meatpacking industry. Racism and ethnic hatred were used, as always, to divide the working class.
Until social justice is attained, until people realize that workers must be united against the rich, there can never be true economic justice.
Excellent post
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and more,
any movement for social justice was stillborn from the start, as no where in that social justice were Black folks included.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)I'm not sure why some people think it has to be one or the other. The two are inherently linked.
However, economic justice alone won't bring about social justice. On the other hand, economic justice will be a consequence of social justice.
procon
(15,805 posts)Social justice will bring about economic justice. There plenty of examples where local, state and national governments have built programs that have supported and organized social justice efforts to uplift communities in peril. As communities become engaged and people unite in mutual solidarity to demand redress from their elected leaders, they learn what a powerful force for change they can be. Once empowered, people will develop the foundation for economic justice.
For examples on the opposite end, look no farther than red states like, Kansas, Florida or Wisconsin, where Republican majorities have made economic growth (justice for some) their top priority.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in poor, racially/ethnically mixed communities neighborhoods, where white folks are in the vast minority. In those communities, the poor work with other poor folks for economic justice, as intra-group social justice in not an issue.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)social justice issue were dividing people and were basically an enemy of the wealth equality, a lot of people in this thread are finally coming around.. funny to see!
wryter2000
(46,051 posts)The idea of choosing has always bugged me. Women have often been told, "we'll worry about your equality at some point, but the class struggle is more important for now."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cause it does not matter anyway.... oligarchy oligarchy oligarchy.
some of us argue that 2016 does matter, if a group does not get their candidate in. that the supreme court in 2016 matters to the lives of our black youth and women and girls. and i am seeing, gays are right up there with us, in equality.
so, the supreme court might not be important to some. it is important to us though. to save live. that matter. and 2016 is part of the answer. even if they do not get their populist candidate.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)as anything in the HRC vs Left argument. Not saying you put it there, I know neither myself nor 1strongblackman seemed to put it there. what was frustrating was that we could not diuscuss a matter like race without the people he descxribed in his op making the suffering of people about THEM.
as far as the "oligrachy oligarchy " thing, a lot of us who scrutinize HRC are NOT trying to help the GOP. I am putting pressure on her because I know damned well that the Erskine Bowles are trying to put pressure on her to do their things, and because we have said "hey, can you adress the economics, she is beginning to do that, and that will make her stronger against a bush, walker or paul. You know I have said time and time again I will vote for whoever wins the nomination; I do not care if a ham sandwich became the nomineee, becausze I know that every vote NOT CAST AGAINST the GOP counts as a win, especially in my beloved Florida. However, do not say that all of us who want Hillary to adress the economics a bit more want her to lose. We do not want someone like a rand Paul poking a dagger through the parts she did not adress.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)social justice. long time duers.
you and i both know that is the argument. i have been given it enough, and you see it in this thread. the whole $ issue is a trickle down to the poor .... just working more with people in my financial situation.
it will take time to work this out of the party. you have people declaring this is our last chance. if we do not do it now, we are done for.
others of us recognize, that 2016 has to be the supreme court for lives saved.
i am all for everyone putting pressure on clintons corporalist/wallstreet positions. she and obama are too light on those issues. we as a people have and do allow it, too.
it still is not taking precedent over our blacks and women and girls, lives.
i have asked quite a few where they stand if clinton is elected. most, thankfully have said they will vote dem. some refuse to answer. the loudest refuse to answer.
me? i am looking at sanders.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)When she DOES start addressing economics ... it is met with thread after thread of "Well, she doesn't REALLY mean it. It's a trick!" ... despite the fact she is saying now, how she voted while in the Senate.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)my point was against the whole idea that putting pressure on her to speak on these thigns will damage her, when it will do the opposite. You and SB are right in that there are people hoping to hijack any issue and bring it to their camp, regardless of who gets hurt.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And is generally a division that is conceptualized by people whose basic rights are not under constant assault, or whose opportunities are not being denied, or who are constantly being thought of as less than human by the dominant culture, or who are not otherwise being dismissed, marginalized, and oppressed.
Wanna talk about economic justice? Let's talk about economic justice.
How about the fact that the majority of American women work outside the home, and many of whom experience various forms of harassment and discrimination - some forms more obvious than others, but all of it dehumanizing - in their work experiences? From being paid less, to being passed over for promotions, to experiencing sexual harassment from employers or co-workers? (Let alone, what happens on the street).
How about all of the women, particularly many lower-status women (poor women, women of color, less educated immigrants) who can't afford to go to work because someone has to take care of their children?
How about all of the employment-based discrimination, and discrimination built into marriage law, against gay and lesbian couples?
How about how deindustrialization, the Great Recession, and economic downturns in general have hit the black working class and other communities of color the hardest - especially when you consider that many in these groups had little to no economic clout to begin with?
How about the fact that the solid majority of the American working class (if you include sub-minimum wage, under-the table labor, or unpaid labor in general - i.e. domestic, agricultural, etc. labor), the vast majority of the very poor, the hardest hit by cutbacks to social services and unemployment benefits and food stamps and other forms of "welfare"-are women, minorities, and immigrants?
Women (including the majority of women - who work inside and outside the home, and regardless of whether their labor is compensated or not by wages), people of color (including black Americans, Latinos, "Asian-Americans", and other highly diverse communities that all fall out of the white mainstream, and the majority of whom are poor and/or working class) LGBT (who, contrary to popular stereotypes, are by and large not upscale, effeminate middle-class white men living in gentrified, trendy cities )-all of these communities and groups have been on the FRONTLINES of struggles for economic and social justice.
The two are not separate. And violence -both state and interpersonal, committed against women, people of color, the LGBT community- is also an economic issue, for what it's worth. Put it this way: Whose wallets suffer more, when their son is killed, when their husband is arrested and sent to prison, when they can't go to work for a while because they've been victimized/traumatized by sexual violence, when their entire neighborhoods' housing values drop drastically as soon as they move in, because more affluent white people move away (out of racist fears of the potential attraction of the "criminal element" to the neighborhood)?
The so-called "social issues activists" have been on the front lines for economic justice for a long, long time. They are inseparable for those who have always been subordinated by the privileged and powerful. Maybe there's something to that inseparability.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)K&R
?oh=af3bcedd2c7e6b61d27b919bb216b274&oe=55D8D01B
raven mad
(4,940 posts)As a white woman in America, I would choose the same. I don't know any black men or women (and I know a lot, and they are friends) who would choose differently.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Black man tells me something is racist, same thing.
Minority tells me that racism against their community is immediate, today, serious, deadly and must be resolved before Anything else, I agree with them, because they know what they are talking about, I dont.
I have not lived it
but that is just me
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Until we have social justice, economic justice won't reach everyone.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The economic status quo is just too damn profitable and the social status quo creates far too much power for things to change without a great deal more social unrest than what we are seeing.
One of the more devastating and unjust impacts of society on the inner city minorities is by the drug war, I used to be perplexed but now I'm amused by the number of social justice warriors who completely ignore the impact of the drug war in their rhetoric.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think I've seen that line before?
But that said,
I agree and have spoken on it on a number of occasions, as it is a big part of the social justice failing.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)FDR Economic Bill of Rights
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]
Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.
The above would go a long way to solving the social Problems.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And a bravo to boot.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)And so many are so young and uneducated that they are not aware of anything that wasn't on iTunes or Buzzflash or Tumblr last month.
All political economic theories and philosophies from the 19th century onward have dealt with the reality that economics is the relationship between peoples in a culture and how we treat each other within those relationships.
Gay marriage is not about family and religion accepting it. No, it is about parity of economics such that a husband can make decisions for his husband in the case of an emergency. A lesbian couple can get the same tax benefits that married heterosexuals enjoy.
Gender equality is not about have neutral colored legos or letting a little girl play baseball. It is about paying women in the workplace for the work they do equal to the same man doing the same job.
You remove the drugs and poverty from these inner city neighborhoods and there will be far less violence between 'cops and criminals'.
Economic justice has always preceded social justice. Property rights are individual human rights. Marx's critique of capitalism and Smiths critique of mercantilism show this reality if only people would read it and look towards the foundations in history.
Instead, Democrats will nominate people who have "evolved" on social justice issues while at the same time putting forth the sickest & most repugnant economic neo-liberal policies and foreign policy neo-conservative policies. The Republicans are no better as they pander to the basest instincts of scared and broke human beings by only offering them the illusion of future wealth, guns, and a vengeful authoritarian god.
Until we return to the New Deal economic realities, we can forget any real chance for economic or social justice change in the future of this country.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)economic AND social justice for everyone. We should always be working toward having both. They are equally as important.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I don't know why so many are struggling to understand what you wrote.
That's their problem. Not yours.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Agree 100%, but not surprised about DU...been here too long to be surprised by much.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Social justice as well would mean the end of white supremacy, which is the vehicle by which economic inequality is driven.
By working against racial discrimination we help achieve to economic justice.
Even the richest black man in this country would tell you that.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)in promoting mass social injustice, because they view your economic prosperity as their own injustice.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,045 posts)
The richest black men and women in America are still an "n-word" to many of the poorest whites, just as the most powerful leader of the world (as the world defines the position) is also considered the "n-word". Because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation to generation. What "economic justice" does Oprah need when she is still profiled in stores?
This is why the sanitation worker protestors in Memphis walked with the simple sign 47 years ago -
As long as we are looked at as or treated as if we are or hunted down like animals or sub-humans (social justice issue), we will never achieve true citizenship and "economic justice" (even if we might be part of the wealthy "1%"
.
And as long as the media continues to call rampaging white children "teens" or "youngsters" or "kids" and dismiss their destructive behavior, but label black children "youths" or "savages", while pumping up the code talk to their rapt audiences, the marginalization will continue.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Very well said. Many don't seem to get that 4 minority men all with college degrees riding in a benz will get profiled as drug dealers or gangbanger's & pulled over in a heartbeat. It will always be a social fight regardless of economic status.
Gothmog
(145,278 posts)I agree that these protests are due to a long history of racial injustice. Evidently "rough rides" are a common tool used in Baltimore and this particular rough ride is responsible of the injuries in question
steve2470
(37,457 posts)a black man. I take your word for it.
Utterly amazing.
randome
(34,845 posts)So it's not up to me to specify someone else's goals, only to acknowledge and support them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)important.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017261917
You really can't have social justice w/o economic justice.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I can't hear it enough.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Tell me ...
What social justice issue does a straight, white, Christian, male have to fight to attain? And, what is lost if that fight is unsuccessful?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Very wealthy too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a good sentiment. from a rich white man. he tried.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Now, how about you answering my question.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Ever read The Jungle? History shows time and again, humans have to be treated with the common dignity that all expect in return. Without it, there will never be standards in any industry.
One has to come first and it has to be the rights of the workers first as human beings. No race or gender exceptions. Total egalitarianism or nothing...no industry to fuel the economy to raise the standard of living. Without simple human rights, there is no standard of living.
IMO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
pansypoo53219
(20,977 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I personally see social justice as an all-encompassing term. It's the combination of economic and non-economic issues into a coherent whole. It's the very opposite of modern American identity politics, which seeks to break people down into narrowly defined subsets with little recognition that they are part of a coherent whole.*
This is a serious question. I figure you meant the distinction between social and economic issues, but it never hurts to ask.
*Identity politics is a loaded term in American politics, but it's quite accurate. It started with the left, but the right has jumped on it with both feet. Why else is their claim of victimized believers taken seriously?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)For some that's true. Tell me: What social justice issues do straight, white, Christian males have to fight to attain? And what do they lose, if they are unsuccessful in that fight?
jeepers
(314 posts)when they were born with it unless they were born poor.
And unless one is born in poverty in a fair America, which of late has seemingly passed us by, the straight white Christian male can expect economic justice,(opportunity), to be his as well.
would love to know what the point of your question is??
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it makes no sense to me.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)even selfishness, cause in reality it is a win for all.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And I understand where you are coming from, I don't agree with you. And I don't believe this has anything to do with what we all know needs to be changed. It is just about how each of us thinks is the best way to get there.
Personally, as a member of the LGBT community, I want equality. I don't believe that anything done, without first getting rid of the corpocracy, will be anything but smoke and mirrors.
But we don't often agree so I am sure you're not surprised.
.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As a member of the LGBT community, do you really value your economic status over the more basic right to love who you love and still maintain your livelihood?
marym625
(17,997 posts)I believe that strides can and are being made in the area but at the same time, laws are being passed that take it away.
I honestly believe that both things have to change and until the corpocracy is dismantled, no social change will be permanent.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Really? You would pause at a national ENDA, added to Title VII (Social Justice) because "corporate rule"? Really?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Dinner is ready. Will respond tomorrow.
Have a great night
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)womens lives, gays equality.
marym625
(17,997 posts)But look at roe v wade. The constant movement since the decision is changing the laws. And it is more than possible that it will be overturned. That's the corpocracy taking control of the airwaves and all MSM. They pay for the control
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is a year and half. a repug win give the supreme crt to the republicans for a good couple decades or more. THAT is unacceptable. cause even if you took the couple decades to do what you want to do, what you insist needs to be done, we wont have the supreme crt. the abortion laws are passing the state. moving to state supreme court and in a couple years or less, will reach the supreme court. i want a dem court.
year and half. that is all we have. not a couple decades.
and we are talking about so much in the supreme court. a third branch in the govt.
it is not just our women, gays rights, but corporate power, too.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I don't believe that there's a substantial difference between social equality and economic equality, not even "two sides of the same coin. Money and racism are so thoroughly intertwined that it is impossible to seperate them, and discussing economic injustice in relation to the riots does not take away from racist, corrupt, and systemic policing on this country.
A famous man once said, "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 earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?”
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Let me ask you: What social justice issues must straight, white, Christian, males fight to attain? And, what do they lose, if they fail to win the fight?
I agree with the words of the Dr. Martin Luther King, as it is an extension of the W.E.B.D/Booker T Debate ... but the proximate question is:
What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he earns enough to buy the Diner; but, still is denied the right to eat at the diner.
Economic equality is only an issue for those that have established social equality ... For those that are offered neither, both are a concern.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)it needs to be heard a lot more!
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)"But if I were to choose one, to be addressed before the other, I would choose social justice over economic justice, because the latter would be hollow, if not, unattainable, without the former."
In for the win!
Novara
(5,842 posts)How can there BE social justice when as a people, blacks have been so economically marginalized???? You cannot separate them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)There is no question that for PoC, women, the LGBT community, the disabled, social justice and economic justice are so closely related as to be one in the same (to a greater or lesser degree); but the same cannot be said for straight, white, Christian males ... What social justice issue does a straight, white, Christian male have to fight to attain? And, what loss doe he suffer if his fight is unsuccessful.
And it is not a coincidence that the vast majority of those arguing social justice cannot be without economic justice, are not (have not been) deprived of social justice.
BumRushDaShow
(129,045 posts)I expect there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of blacks here in the U.S. (and most likely some on DU) who have had ancestors or even current relatives, who have "passed for white".
What does this mean? It is a phenomena that few whites can even comprehend. There were even a few films that were made about this (I remember when I was a kid seeing at least one aired on one of our local independent stations back in the early '70s) - it may have been this one -
and/or this -
We had a neighbor (whose kids we used to play with) who was very "fair" (as we say in the community "light, bright, and damn near white"
, and who WAS "assumed" to be "white" by her co-workers. But if ever asked, she never ever denied being black.
As a comedy/drama take on this, indie social commentary film maker Melvin Van Peebles filmed his famous (or infamous) film - "Watermelon Man" (another that I recall seeing aired locally back in the '70s and much talked-about in the community) -
The point being the attempt to illustrate the black perspective of the egregious differences between literal "skin color" and the treatment of the races in this country based on that. It impacts our "economics" because the wielder of the "power" will determine, using the color criteria, whether you can get a job, buy a house, or get a loan.
In homogeneous countries, this type of prejudice leans towards ethnic group and/or religious affiliations versus "color". But here in the U.S. (and as illustrated in the now-repealed codified apartheid laws of South Africa), the "extra" burden of "color" was applied on top of everything else (ethnic, economic, religious -although in South Africa, a "3rd category" - "coloured" was added to form a more granular hierarchy of determining societal treatment of different groups when it came to social and economic status). These "societal rules" impact what job types might be offered, with few exceptions (not unlike India's "caste" system, where if you take one look at who are dubbed "untouchables", it is obvious what was going on with that).
The OP has indicated that the two are intertwined. But the argument is that the one (lack of social justice), when it comes to our (black) community, continues to negatively impact the TRUE achievement of the other (economic justice), given that the wealthiest blacks (who DO make more money that even most whites) are treated the same way as the poorest blacks.
I have yet to see one post attempt to address why wealthy blacks are targeted, followed, harassed, stopped, frisked, detained, and even arrested and thrown in jail. The closest thing to an "argument" is that the "1%" wants it to be that way to "divide and conquer". But guarantee that this is not the "black 1%" doing it to themselves, It's what?
The holder of the power - the "white 1%", where their very tactic to divide using race IS "racist" (which goes back to the demand for "social justice" . They "play" the "race card" and the "playing of the race card" is what needs to be stopped (social justice).
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)the important things in life, like social justice, and freedom to make choices, etc.
The children of people like you and me want more than social justice. They want things that money can buy - jobs, wheels, clothes, spending money, and these are important.
Depends on where you are in life what's important to you.
But I agree with you that social justice is worth more. Without it, the junk you could buy does ring hollow...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)should she need one, at a good clinic by a good doctor.
qwlauren35
(6,148 posts)Sometimes it seems as though black folks and white folks on DU speak a different language. Many white folks on DU can't personally relate to social injustice, but relate to economic injustice. They are very, very different. And they are NOT tied together as strongly as people on DU suggest. Rich black people get called ni**er. Obama is called ni**er. That's a SOCIAL problem. There's nothing economic about it.
Sometimes I think that this is part of white privilege, that white people want to define the problem that black people have in America. BlackLivesMatter is *NOT* about economic injustice. It's about black people getting killed. INNOCENT black people. Not always poor black people. And economic justice WILL NOT FIX THIS.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes!!! And, coincidentally, define the problem in a manner where fixing our problem, just so happens to benefit themselves ... while not touching the problem we have.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)admit it. I think they deliberately refuse to admit this truth to themselves.
avebury
(10,952 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)decide which one they were fighting for. And I don't think they divided the issues. Economy and social justice (when it came to the landowning white male) were one and the same. Why is it different for the rest of us now?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)today. And that I do not remember them writing about their rights in an either or manner. Black people should not have to do that either. They should not have to choose between which right they want. They are entitled to both social justice and economic justice.
Ironically the landowning white males may be our founding fathers but they were only acting in their own behalf. Unlike the black protesters of today who raise us all up if they can bring about the changes they seek.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)for those who do not see the difference between social justice and economic justice.
Let's take the example of Henry Louis Gates (hardly a victim of economic injustice as a distinguished Harvard professor with a sideline producing popular PBS documentaries and shows). He was arrested by the police as a potential burglar, even though he showed proof that it was his own home he was trying to get into.
Or any black man trying to hail a taxi cab in New York. (I was made aware of this decades ago by a distinguished black cinematographer, who had us both laughing and gasping at his cab stories at lunch once.)
Or a well-to-do black woman being suspected of potential shoplifting when she asks to see an expensive handbag.
Or just plain "driving while black." You can be rich and/or famous, but you will not escape this indignity (and potential life-threatening institutional procedure). This is not generally the case if you are a white person in America.
There is a difference. And while there are connections between economic and social justice from a theoretical perspective on the societal level, in everyday terms it seems that no amount of economic prestige releases a black person from societal injustices, large and small. We certainly have had leaders such as Eric Holder and Cory Booker attest to their own stories on this front. Money and power still won't buy you social justice in many cases.
In thinking about it, there probably can be no economic justice on a widespread basis until social justice is achieved. Anyone who tries to make this about "corporatists" or "Wall Street" is just tooting their own political horn. There was social and economic injustice in this country for African Americans well before the mergers and swap trades and Goldman Sachs of our current era. For several hundred years. In other words, there has always been a gap in this country based on race. And there was never some "golden era" (even under everybody's favorite FDR) in this respect.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)country club and i assume, they do not allow blacks. he has money. lives in a neighborhood where his daughter can look out the window and see the country club, but cannot join her peers because of location and the color of her skin.
my boys, too, could look at the window at a country club while they grew up. it was fond memories, because the country club included my boys and so they had fond memories when they looked out the window.
i think that is a pretty blunt, example of the difference.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
ananda
(28,862 posts)Isn't one predicated on the other?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)For PoC and women and the LGBT Community and other "Others", yes ... they are inextricably linked; and/but, the farther one is from being the/a straight, white, Christian, male, the stronger less the link. So we find wealthy and poor PoC and women and the LGBT Community and other "Others" denied, both, social justice AND economic Justice (i.e., intra-working class wage disparities).
But the closer one is to being the/a straight, white, Christian, male, the link becomes lessened to a point of singular (personal) concern (i.e., economic parity with the 1%).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)audacity to ponder what the conversation is here, as our people die.
people here having the audacity to know, once economic quality, what is left in life....
as people die.
this is the repeated question by white men in the thread.
as our people continue to die.
guys, what are you not getting?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as our black youth continue to be murder
please come mommy.
how long have and how long must we sit down and quietly, gently, reassuring do we ask....
may we have some more.
it is so very clear. when another tells us to sit there, passive. and ask for our live.
that there is even this discussion
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)way
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This thread is replete with Economic Justice discussion; but, this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026597470
Asking for a description of what that term looks like, got a couple looks and a couple responses ... with some VERY conspicuous silences.