Frankly, I'm glad that BLM is confronting Bernie's campaign, and Bernie should be glad as well...

[MrScorpio]

Earlier today, I was reading a roundtable article in Manrepeller.com on the subject of race and one of the participants had this to say:

" One is you need to be able to separate the difference between when someone is calling you out on an action versus when someone is calling you something and making a comment on your character. Two different conversations. And you need to be able to tell the difference.

"Two, you need to know the difference between being an ally and allying, which are two different things. Being an ally does not mean you are above criticism. As a matter of fact, being an ally means you should welcome criticism. You should welcome to opportunity to do and be better."

Ashley C. Ford

http://www.manrepeller.com/2015/07/white-privilege.html

Now I understand that many here believe wholeheartedly that Bernie is fully committed to improving the conditions by which the Black Lives Matter movement arose. However, all of you should take note of the dichotomy that separates Bernie's campaign from the activists who are engaging it. And that's the divide between politics and social activism. The art of politics invariably entails a certain amount of lip service being doled out at times which are most opportune to the politician rather than to the audience. Those are the rules of the game and no one is above them, including Bernie. This is the position that the BLM movement has staked in regards to all of the Democrats running.

Those of you who are wondering why BLM apparently does not care to disrupt GOP political rallies, well the answer to that is quite simple: BLM activists are well aware that the GOP is not an ally to black people. Democrats have apparently declared their alliance, but it's not fully realized one. After all, we have Democrats dismissing the BLM message by blurting out "All lives matter," which of course is the right wing, racist rejoinder to "Black lives matter."

It's doesn't look good when Democratic candidates, or "allies" do such a thing, especially when more black lives are being snuffed out on a daily basis. Hence we have the divide between the urgency of activism and the need for politicians to have adoring audiences at rallies.

Confronting Bernie is an demand that he own up to his own potential. You want BLM activists to continue to do this. Much is expected from him and as long as he is getting these activists in his audience, it's a sure sign that they expect him to make the situation better.

What you should be worried about is if ever BLM activists were to stop disrupting Democratic rallies. Were these incidents to cease, then it should be apparent that BLM activists will expect as little action from Democrats as they do from Republicans.

Lip service in the face of dead bodies lying out in our streets only gets you so far.

[winter is coming]

1. BLM has apologized to Sanders...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141170737

[roguevalley]

20. if they would protest everyone but him I might not be pissed aboiut this. Also

consider how everyone thinks that bernie can't win. Why attack him? That is, unless someone believes he is going to win. Nothing about this feels right to me. Attack the pugs. They don't give a damn if black people die, they believe they deserve it.

[peacebird]

76. Exactly, why do they only target HIS events? This type partisan crap hurts their cause

As did calling Bernie and his supporters "white supremacist liberals" from the stage today.

[GoneFishin]

81. Yep. They think he can win. And they are shitting their pants over it.

[peacebird]

82. Exactly.

[emsimon33]

107. Yep!

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Why aren't they protesting the White House or the DOJ ?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

93. Or Congress?

or state capitals?

[KeepItReal]

126. Notice the lack of a response

To your very valid question.

[ibegurpard]

3. true however

We are starting to see a pattern here where only one candidate is being targetted. That is going to cause many people to dismiss the movement as a political ploy...fair or not. And the movement is far too important to be dismissed as anyone's political stalking horse. I understand that it's a very decentralized organization but someone's going to need to start doing some strategizing.

[MrScorpio]

8. Those who are predisposed to dismissing the movement will have their reasons to do so...

It's a sign that they've stopped listening or were never willing to listen in the first place.

I'm quite willing to credit a certain amount white privilege and unwillingness to discuss criticism as reasons why.

[ibegurpard]

13. I fear you underestimate the numbers of people

Who will start tuning it out.

[catnhatnh]

100. Well then-do they not think Hillary is an ally???

Do they sense she has already reached her full potential???

If you're going to sing "They always hurt the one they love" then where did Hillary's huge lead in the polls that I hear about disappear to???

They're doing this because they're trying to help Bernie is frankly horseshit.

[MrScorpio]

105. I'm not seeing any tacit and active support for Hillary by BLM...

How many BLM activists were wearing Hillary t-shirts and waving H placards? None, right?

The idea that BLM is tool of her campaign is ridiculous.

They're not happy with any of the candidates and have stated that they're expecting more from Bernie, simply because he's the most left leaning of all the Dems. BLM's sticking point is being the most left-leaning white candidate, supported mostly by white liberals is not enough to address the lives of black people who are dying in this country every day.

[aspirant]

112. T-shirts are the determining factor of HRC support?

So if the BLM is not supporting Hillary who exactly is the 80% of the AA community the pollsters claim support Hillary?

Do these 80% hold this view, "They're not happy with any of the candidates and have stated that they're expecting more from Bernie, simply because he's the most left leaning of all the Dems."

[MrScorpio]

113. Again, I haven't heard BLM support any candidate.

To them, all of them are left wanting. What should be pointed out is not every single black person in this country is an active member of BLM.

[aspirant]

116. Again, the pollsters stating the AA community

is 80% for Hillary are liars by your statement, "Again, I haven't heard BLM support any candidate."

"not every single black person in this country is an active member of BLM." So again, what % are?

[MrScorpio]

117. You should separate BLM activists from the general Black community

One does not equate to the other.

By definition and by their own statement, none of the candidates meet with their approval.

So, I would say that percentage BLM activists supporting Hillary would be quite small.

[aspirant]

121. blm by the #'s

"So, I would say that percentage BLM activists supporting Hillary would be quite small." Do we guess 1% or 2% out of 80%?

How much do you estimate of the remaining 20% of non-HRC voters are BLM members?

[MrScorpio]

122. I don't know and I don't care

Obviously, this is your pony to ride.

Hi-yo silver away, baby.

[aspirant]

123. You don't care

how many people are involved in saving Black Lives?

[MrScorpio]

124. I don't care, because I don't think that BLM is a tool planted by Hillary to get Bernie

That's obviously your bag.

I do however think that Bernie would do well by engaging BLM face to face, as well as BLM should get an opportunity to address their concerns with him in person. You know, like a question and answer forum, such the one he engaged with the Latino small business community just last week.

Build some bridges here.

Since don't think that BLM is a tool of Hillary, and Bernie has stated that he cares about the lives of black people in this country, I think it only natural for the two sides to come together in the spirit of unity and cooperation.

This is an opportunity for both as far I'm concerned.

[aspirant]

137. Do you care about saving Black lives now?

Bernie doesn't get into office until 2017 and....

Obama: ‘Great Urgency’ to Address Race
Source: TDB/NPR

In an interview with NPR one year after unarmed black teenager Michael Brown was gunned down by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., President Obama says he feels a “great urgency” to address race. Obama said he doesn’t “buy” the notion that political considerations in his first term kept him from efficiently addressing the issue of race. “Here’s one thing I will say: That I feel a great urgency to get as much done as possible,” Obama said. “And, there’s no doubt that after over six and a half years on this job, I probably have an easier time juggling a lot of different issues. And, it may be that my passions show a little bit more. Just because I have been around this track for now for a while.”

Could Bernie be a conduit to Obama and Lynch for BLM to get action NOW or isn't that your BAG.

[KittyWampus]

18. what pattern? the first time it was O'Malley and Sanders.

[jeff47]

42. The pattern includes the lack of protests of Clinton, Obama and Lynch.

So...people are getting shot right now, and the most important thing is to protest someone who can't possibly do anything until January 2017, and is not leading in the polls for the 2017 nomination.

That makes utterly zero sense if they are being truthful about their goals.

[RKP5637]

54. That's my take too! It's a total WTF! n/t

[Fred Sanders]

4. BLM is protesting to it's friends, it's enemies it knows are beyond reach.

Some enemies are beyond reach of reason and debate. Which is why speaking to a rigid evangelical theocratic college audience of students forced to attend the speaking event is pointless.

[peacebird]

78. So smearing Sanders as a white supremacist and hurting his campaign helps them, how?

No. It only helps Hillary if Bernie is damaged by them.

[Fred Sanders]

79. I do not argue with flaming strawmen.

[djean111]

5. It is starting to look like BLM wants Bernie to make his entire campaign solely about BLM.

IMO and all that.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. It's ironic

that where I live African Americans are actually organizing grassroots movement for Bernie. The BLM is very prominent here. It surprised me that they went after Bernie in Portland. However, I am sure as she suggest that Bernie welcomes this discussion.

[enough]

7. Will there be some point at which they confront Hillary and her campaign? (nt)

[MrScorpio]

9. I hope so nt.

[jeff47]

43. Of course not. (nt)

[Daniel537]

50. Hell no.

Lenin had it right. Useful idiots.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. They won't get within a city block of Hillary's $2700 per ticket events and EVERYONE HERE KNOWS IT.

[Cha]

10. So am I ..and anywhere else.. "Poll Shows Why Black Lives Matter Activists Should Be Proud"

snip//

The poll saw increases in the number of blacks, whites and Hispanics who felt more changes were needed. In 2014, only 39 percent of whites said more needed to be done. In 2015, that number jumped to 53 percent. For blacks, the numbers increased from 79 percent to 86 percent, and for Hispanics, 54 percent to 70 percent.

Pew surveyed 2,002 adults between July 14 and July 20, using live interviewers to reach both landlines and cell phones.

A Washington Post survey, released Wednesday, asked the same question as the Pew Research Center and got very similar results.

The Pew poll comes after a year of heightened Black Lives Matter activism, including numerous rallies, die-ins and acts of civil disobedience. A Gallup poll released Tuesday showed comparable results.

More..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/poll-black-lives-matter-activists_55c24a2de4b0d9b28f0525e9?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&kvcommref=mostpopular&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000051

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. I don't think people are having an issue with them disrupting 'Democratic rallies'.

But specifically targeting only Bernie. The event disrupted today wasn't a Bernie rally. It was a larger event with a whole host of speakers, and the disruption only occurred when it was Bernie's time to speak. That, along with the fact that we're not hearing anything about BLM disrupting any Hillary events, O'Malley events, Webb events, or Chafee events is starting to make it easier for people to believe that these specific disruptions ARE about losing Bernie votes, and not actually about saving black lives. Even if you conflate Bernie and O'Malley by saying 'After all, we have Democrats dismissing the BLM message by blurting out "All lives matter," ' which was, of course, O'Malley and not Bernie. That kind of calls for O'Malley events to be disrupted, if you want to point out that that 'doesn't look good'.

I expect action from Bernie on our racist 'justice' systems if he becomes President. But if he is deliberately cut off from even a chance of winning black votes, well, he probably won't be President, and he won't be able to do nearly as much to help with that much needed reform. And the results I've been seeing from these BLM activities are more and more AA's saying they won't ever vote for Bernie. It may not be the intent of the activists, but it's what's actually happening.

[jeff47]

44. Don't forget disrupting Obama or Lynch events.

Those two can actually do something about it today.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. May I offer a quote from you, Mr Scorpio, commenting upon LGBT disruptive activism tactics? Thanks.

"I really don't have any sympathy for any these god-damned hecklers, whether they be on the right or the left."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022950046

Now that is pretty much an entirely different view of the tactic and of those using it. I assume your point of view has evolved to understand the merits of such tactics. By remembering your former point of view, you might be able to serve as a bridge between those who understand and those who, do not since you were so recently of a mind with them.

[MrScorpio]

17. And what expectation was there from the First Lady in that case?

She's not a politician and she was there advocating for kids when that particular incident, created by a single individual with her own agenda, disrupted the First Lady's speech.

The First Lady offered the mic to the heckler so say her piece to the audience, if you remember. The audience declined her offer.

At the time I also attributed these disruptions of the First Lady and the President as further evidence to the Obama's aren't getting their due respect while in office simply because they're black.

However, one thing that's notable was that the person who disrupted the First Lady's speech on at risk and presumably mostly minority kids was a gay activist. Since then, the cause of gays rights have been measurably improved under an Obama administration and seemingly so, the plight of at risk minority kids have deteriorated.

You may not be aware of this, but there are those in the black community who believe that the improvement of gay rights has correlation with the lack of improvement in their community. Too much emphasis on the improvement of one, at the expense of inaction in the other.

[DemocraticWing]

21. Well hopefully we can walk and crew gum at the same time.

Surely you support ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as most LGBTQ people support ending discrimination based on race. Moving beyond that and onto structural inequality is important too, not mentioning how the two needs intersect with the "double jeopardy" of multiple oppressions that LGBTQ people of color face.

Just recently I heard about the 12th trans woman of color that was murdered this year. Surely that dispels the notion that fighting for LGBTQ rights will harm black people, or vice versa.

[MrScorpio]

37. And you're absolutely correct...

Just to point out one thing, I'm not one of those people who thinks that one fighting for LGBTQ rights harms black people. However, even as I disagree with that notion, I do see why it's being said.

Because when it comes to highlighting the plight of LGBTQ people of color, it's usually LGBTQ people of color who are doing the lion's share in that arena.

Funny thing, I've heard that there's a protest against the new Stonewall movie coming out by LGBTQ people of color, accusing the producers of whitewashing the events that actually happened. They've cast straight white actors in place of the LGBTQ people of color and things like that. Of course it's what Hollywood typically does, but it's a shame that we're still seeing things like that in this day and age.

It's just that white supremacy is a hard thing to overcome in this country, and the intersecting of movements has a long way to go as well.

These are challenges and works in progress. I'm hoping that we can do better.

[DemocraticWing]

57. I signed a petition about boycotting that movie

I'm not sure how far that will get, because I worry that too many white people in the LGBTQ community (not to mention straight white people) don't realize the important contributions of people of color at Stonewall and throughout much of the LGBTQ equality movement.

One of the appealing aspects of socialism to me is the idea of solidarity. But I think for a long time white progressives in this country have defined solidarity on their own terms, and that's not going to stand anymore. I have supported Bernie with the caveat that if he can't grasp how things have changed, he will lose badly. Sometimes I think he gets it, but he's in a hole and is going to have to get out of it.

In the end, the issues are more important than a candidate. Whoever is nominated will be an imperfect champion I'm sure, and activists will be there to call them out on that.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Did you read what I posted to you? You used to be against such tactics, now you understand them

Is that not correct? You should be able to foster understanding in this situation. You will find that I have been supportive of Black Lives Matter because we have so much in common. Not sure who you think you are preaching to, but your former view of that tactic was absolute and applied to all. Now you see it differently and I am glad that you do. Use your evolution to help others evolve.

[MrScorpio]

46. But I have to ask you, what office was the First Lady running for?

What really bothered me about the Sturz incident was that the First Lady was there advocating for at risk youth of color at a private function, not some public government hearing or political rally. Even to the audience, Sturz was out of place and barking at the wrong person. The First Lady even offered her the mic and we all saw how that turned out.

I also pointed out the notion that race played a part in the disrespect against her and the President by white activists. White people are not a racially disadvantaged group in this, LGTBQ or not. It's kind of hard to close one eyes at the racial aspects here.

When it comes protesting politicians and government officials, I'm more willing to give some leeway to protestors, especially if their causes are worthy.

But at what point are we to throw away the needs of disadvantaged kids to satisfy some individual's attention seeking?

[Bluenorthwest]

134. So you are saying then that Bernie had it coming, was a proper target and Social Security/Medicare

are not worthwhile subjects but Michelle and her subject matter were not suitable targets? Because that's not what you said back then. You said you were sick of all of them, left and right. And you made OP's to rail against those terrible protesters who dared interrupt an ally talking about something worthwhile.

You spoke in absolute terms you were 'sick of them all' back then, left and right and all of them. Cake and eat it too, Mr S, is not flattering to anybody.

[MrScorpio]

135. Consider the Sturz incident as the last straw...

Don't forget that the constant disruption of public events by activists of a sitting president and first lady were unprecedented. The reason clearly being from a lack of respect because they're black.

And this is in spite of the fact that The Obama administration had a clear plan of action to overturn anti-LGBTQ laws. Frankly, there's never any doubt in my mind that overturning DADT and achieving marriage equality were going to happen because of the President's leader. The activists may not have liked his methods, but no one could blame him for not having effective ones. My frustration with Sturz was that none of that was taken into account while she was harassing the First Lady. Not only that, what did you expect the first lady to do?

One thing that Sturz did was to start shouting at the First Lady when she was making an emotionally sensitive and heartfelt advocacy for at risk youth of color. She was in the midst of her presentation to a receptive audience. And it would not be inappropriate to cite a certain amount of white privilege exercised by Sturz, as she disrupted a black First Lady in the midst of her advocacy for those at risk children of color.

Just like yesterday, black and white people are bound to see something like that from different perspectives.

Now, unlike the Sturz incident, what happened yesterday didn't happen either without warning, or in a vacuum. That disruption of a public rally was an extension of Sanders dropping the ball at Netroots. Even after two weeks post plus from Netroots, what have we heard from Sanders about his plan of action? It's not he doesn't care. He's repeated said he does. But between now and back during Netroots, there's a perception that nothing but lip service has happened. I just wrote a piece on perception by BLM activists that Sanders is STILL found wanting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=20516

So clearly, in regards to doing something to improve the situation that's still happening day in and day out, the perception is that the concerns of BLM activists have been put on Sanders' back burner. The negative reaction by white liberal supporters in Seattle wasn't helpful either.

I can clearly see different contexts between the Sturz incident and a disruption of ANY political rally, even if Clinton started to have public ones.

Unlike President Obama successful plan of action to address the concerns of LGBTQ activists, I've yet to see from Sanders or any of the other candidates a plan of action to overturn systemic and institutional white supremacy in this country, which lies at the root cause of cost black lives.

[Skittles]

14. your point would make more sense if BLM was targeting ALL candidates

but they seem to be protesting just one

why is that?

and WHY are they not disrupting the events of people currently in office, who could actually make a difference?

[winter is coming]

19. +1. n/t

[dreamnightwind]

15. Wow, completely disagree

They seem to have no problem with the corporatists tough-on crime welfare reformer whose base is hard-working white people. Why do you think that is? I think you're missing what's going on here.

[sadoldgirl]

16. There is a difference though.

If they had stopped after the 4.5 min of silence,
which they demanded, things would have gone
differently. Instead there was no intent to give up
the mic.
Pardon me, but it is not wise to cut off your nose
to spite your face. We all know, and BLM must be
aware of this, that without the "white supremacist
liberals" as the crowd was called, BLM has NO
chance to effect change at all.

Apology or not, this was an effort to discredit Bernie,
and since he is now the only one, who gets their "visits",
I have become very suspicious. Not of the movement
itself, but how it might be used by TPTB.

[MrScorpio]

28. There's couple things here that I'd like you to consider...

One being that white supremacy and liberalism are not mutually exclusive. White supremacy affects everyone and even those who profess being to liberals are not above being both beneficiaries and practitioners of this system. It's pervasiveness is by design. When whites, even those who believe that they're not racist, actively disassociate themselves from the conditions that affect non-whites, it serves to further the existence of systemic white supremacy.

Another thing to consider is that, generally, today's generation of whites in this country are barely less racist than their predecessors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/07/white-millennials-are-just-about-as-racist-as-their-parents/

Racism as a practice and an attitude is not improving all that much in this country. That's pretty much a fact.

Now this idea that BLM activists are doing all they can to discredit Bernie, I don't think that's the case. I don't think it's the case because I'm actually listening to what they have to say. And they're saying to Bernie that, out of all Democrats running, they're expecting the most out of him. You may think that they're picking on him. But again, I ask you to go back to the quote in my OP about the idea that allies should not be about criticism.

They want more than politics out of Bernie, and they're telling him to his face that they expect more.

[stranger81]

131. The protestors today certainly did not approach Sanders as a potential ally whom they expect

more from. They treated him like the enemy. They called him a "white supremacist." They shouted in his face for twenty minutes. They refused to let him speak, refused to let the audience hear him, and refused to shake his hand. They demanded "respect" and "silence" from Bernie and the members of his audience, and refused to show anyone else the same respect they demanded for themselves.

It's really reaching to suggest these protestors were motivated by a desire to influence Sanders to better support their goals. They were clearly interested only in shutting him up.

[Triana]

22. Why don't they disrupt HILLARY's rallies? And NO I don't want them to continue this.

Bernie is the ONLY candidate running who has in the past and continues to support their cause. Yet HE is the one whose campaign they are usurping?

He is receptive and would likely SHARE the stage with them regularly IF THEY ASKED. But they don't. And once they take over they REFUSE to let him have the mic or stage back.

They claim the want "to be heard". Is that the wisest way to do it? I don't think so.

So what's the end game for BLM?

They destroy Sanders' campaign or he just gets sick of their taking over his rallies -- then they end up with Hillary or a fucking Republican for President. How is THAT going to improve things? What's all this going to get them? "heard", you say? Is that it?

Why are they working AGAINST the only candidate who supports their cause instead of WITH him?

They're making NO new allies with this crap. And they'll likely destroy the one person's campaign who supports their cause.

It's not smart. They can have their OWN rallies and their own events. Or work WITH the Dem campaigns (ALL OF THEM - not just single out Sanders) - if they're serious about gaining allies and being heard.

But this shit - what they did today? BULLSHIT. And counterproductive as all get-out.

I support BLM but I do NOT support their tactics at NetRoots or in Seattle today.

NOPE.

[LWolf]

24. Okay. Now please explain

why BLM is not targeting Democratic candidates equally.

Are you saying that BLM is confronting Sanders more, and harder, because he has more potential than the rest?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

25. A link

https://www.dailykos.com/comments/1410064/57199012#c198

[LWolf]

26. Okay.

Does BLM/Seattle, or all of BLM, think that Sanders and his campaign represent white liberals who won't back them? Is that the message?

I don't see anything in your link that explains why their focus is Sanders, rather than all Democratic candidates.

And, while I think the netroots demonstration was effective, I think this one is counter-productive. If they really wanted Sanders to more specifically address racial justice, why not ask him questions, and let him speak? Why deliberately shut him down and offend his supporters, who already back BLM, and could be inspired to become more active?

I really don't understand.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. I have no answers, but

that's the closest thing to any sort of explanation of the action I've come across so far, and supposedly it was written by actual BLM folks from that chapter. I believe in letting people speak for themselves, so I've been popping the link (or the text) into various of the diaries.

We've got a bunch of serious, related racial justice issues that are being addressed by BLM, but there does seem to be a focus on Sanders specifically from some BLM representatives that we have yet to see show up in regards to other Democratic candidates. From an electoral standpoint, the actions appear to be reducing Sanders' chance of winning as many black voters over as he might have. That certainly may not be the goal of the protesters, if we take them at their words, but it looks to be the result.

[LWolf]

35. Yes.

I think that it also may be a poor long-term strategy. What I've heard, from listening, is that BLM would like white supporters to join their cause...not just philosophically, but with action. This doesn't seem like the best strategy to encourage that.

I'm not a "tweeter," but I'd join BLM on the street, or by calling or writing or other actions...not like this, though.

[kwassa]

32. O'Malley was also a target at netroots. It wasn't just about Bernie.

[LWolf]

38. "WAS" being the key point.

And, of course, HRC HAS NOT BEEN A TARGET AT ALL.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

39. Actually just came across a statement in WillyT's OP that might be relevant.

I didn't see the whole protest, so I missed it before, but apparently there was a line to Sanders from one of the protesters about how O'Malley put out a specific proposal package in response to the NN15 disruption, with the implication being that Sanders had failed to do so. In which case, if Sanders (well, his staff) sat down and wrote out his specific policy proposals in re racial justice, rather than just using them in speeches, would that satisfy what is apparently being demanded that protesters don't feel Sanders is addressing?

[jeff47]

47. Clinton has no plan either. So where's her protests? (nt)

[LWolf]

58. Logic would say that should satisfy those demands, anyway. nt

[kwassa]

49. and this is only the second disruption, right?

[LWolf]

56. As far as I know.

I read the press release about todays action at the blm seattle fb page. It wasn't about all the candidates, or the Democratic Party. Take a look, and tell me what you think:

https://www.facebook.com/BLMSeattle/posts/716844418437393

[kwassa]

114. This statement claims that all candidates will be protested.

It seems more aimed at the white progressive community of Seattle than Bernie specifically.

There are many clear grievances in the statement about long standing racism locally.

I don't know how successful this tactic is.

[Gloria]

90. But, I have seen black commentators saying that Clinton can't take

The black vote for granted and that the Clinton camp is concerned about black voter turnout. To that end, I think, Clinton came out early on voting rights...which may have defused things for now..but thst's no guarantee that there won't be an event where BLM will show up and disrupt...

[BillZBubb]

27. Frankly, your post is BS.

The republicans are just who they should be protesting.

Medgar Evers didn't go to Michigan to protest segregation in Mississippi. He went to the University of Mississippi--where the real problem was. The only way to fix this police slaughter of black people is to hold the republican's feet to the fire. They are the roadblock, not the Democrats and certainly not Bernie Sanders.

BLM is a politically clueless organization.

[cali]

30. it was out of control.

Ugly.

[MrScorpio]

31. Yep, it was messy...

I've mentioned before that politics and activism are two different entities. Politicians and activists inherently speak wholly different languages.

But it got people talking.

[cali]

33. time for Bernie to get security.

This is not.ok

[Cosmic Kitten]

51. TALK TO THE DoJ and OBAMA, or HILLARY

[HereSince1628]

34. That's the nature of anarchy. BLM activity is crowd-sourced and very loosely structured

I don't believe there is anyone one who can simultaneously apologize AND prevent the recurrence of this.

[Cosmic Kitten]

52. BLM are anrchist? interesting!

Does that get them on any "lists"?

[HereSince1628]

61. anarchists...as in loosely organized, basically self-proclaimed and crowd sourced

effort to disrupt and tear down the political/social organization that oppresses them.

They don't really care if Sanders and Sanders campaign is or isn't actually aimed at oppressing them or not.


Sanders is an old white guy, he represents whats wrong with America in their minds and his campaign is a soft-enough target to disrupt, which is that action they want.

[Cosmic Kitten]

64. Oh, I get it! Those were not anarchist!

No Quarter for those #BowDownBernie folks

[Cheese Sandwich]

36. I defended it before but not this time. Sanders has been speaking daily on the issues important to

the movement. There's no reason to target him in particular. As far as I know #blackLivesMatter is a decentralized movement like #occupy. Anybody can stage an action and use that slogan, or set up a facebook page using BlackLivesMatter. I'm not saying today's protesters were insincere or politically trying to benefit a different candidate. But if they were, it would look exactly like that. I came on here and defended the protest at netroots but not this time.

If you read their press release this is why they did it today:

RESS RELEASE: Black Lives Matter Seattle ‪#‎BowDownBernie‬ Action
MEDIA CONTACTS: Marissa Johnson [e-mail]
Black Lives Matter Seattle organizers and supporters take over Bernie Sanders’ rally at Westlake on Saturday, August 8, 2015.

Today BLM Seattle, with the support of other Black organizers and non-Black allies and accomplices, held Bernie Sanders publicly accountable for his lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement and his blatantly silencing response to the ‪#‎SayHerName‬ ‪#‎IfIDieInPoliceCustody‬ action that took place at Netroots this year.

https://www.facebook.com/BLMSeattle/posts/716844418437393

I'm all for disruptive protest but if it's just going to be targeted at Bernie Sanders I ain't for it.

[Armstead]

40. How can he "live up to his own potential" if they help to shitcan his chances to do anything?

For the first time, there is a candidate who is actually bringing core progressives issues into the mainstream campaign. After waiting for the Political Iceburg to start melting for over 30 years, that is extremely good news.

Bernie has a very uphill battle to even be able to stay in the race to keep these issues in the campaigns.

If BLM and those who support them really want to make any inroads, they ought to realize the incredible importance of that. And instead of trying to embarrass Sanders and the movement he represents, it seem to me they ought to be encouraging it. Actually doing things to advance it.

Sure they may have differences over the way Bernie presents things, or whether the economic well being of everyone is more or less important than racial issues. Certainly a valid point of debate over time.

But Jeeze Louise. Sanders and the movement behind him represent the best chance -- maybe the lst chance -- to actually get a seat at the table.

That's what makes me so sick of what is happening with this.

[MrScorpio]

53. Unlike you, the BLM are simply not going to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt...

They're issuing to him a challenge. It was quite clear that they've judged his past performance as wanting, but see potential in him based on what he's publicly stated.

AS I've said before, what you should worry about is if they start ignoring him completely.

Folks here have pointed out that Hillary hasn't been getting the same attention as Bernie from BLM… Perhaps that should say something about their expectations of her.

[Armstead]

92. Can we try that?

"AS I've said before, what you should worry about is if they start ignoring him completely."

Unless they'd rather see Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush in the WH and a GOP sweep, and all that would flow from that -- and if they prefer to have the Oligarchy push down even harder -- I simply suggest they reevaluate their tactics and targets.

[MrScorpio]

94. If Bernie's momentum is truly strong enough to take the nomination and win the General...

Then I wouldn't would worry about him losing to Republicans likes Cruz or Bush.

Frankly, if anything, this is a great opportunity for Bernie to show that he takes BLM seriously. He should meet them in a forum. Field questions from an audience of activists. Do it in some place like Ferguson.

Both sides should be talking to each other and willing to listen to each other.

[Armstead]

95. Bernies momentum is very fragile

He's in an uphill fight that's so steep it make Everest look like a molehill. Bernie's a big boy and he can handle himself. But in the larger world of perceptions this bullshit is an extra weight that is unnecessary

Maybe he should do what you suggest. But not if it's just another excuse to embarrass him, and undermine the larger struggle.

[MrScorpio]

98. That's not the impression that I'm getting from his supporters...

According to them, his nomination is all but a certainty. At this point, I have no idea who the nominee will be. I'm pretty much open to all of the Democrats at this point. It's a little to early for me too toss a hat in anyone's ring.

Besides, if Bernie is truly up to the task of being the best AND most natural candidate to address BLM's concerns, then he should use this as an opportunity to excel.

He can run and hide, or he can build bridges… Be a leader.

[Armstead]

99. I'm being honest

as for the rest of your message, he;s a leader and he;s not running and hiding. And he will excel.

But it requires more than that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

41. Eff that noise.. Bernie should be glad fffffffffffuuuuccccccccc

Defending the indefensible is reprehensible!

[seveneyes]

45. They have one heel on the shovel

[jeff47]

48. Yes, #BowDownBernie totally demonstrates their support for Sanders.

[MrScorpio]

55. To me, that says a lot more about his supporters than it does about the man himself nt

[jeff47]

59. Demanding Sanders bow down to them is about Sanders's supporters.

Yeah.....did you pull a muscle stretching far?

[MrScorpio]

60. Bowing down implies worship...

Hence, it's a rejoinder to his worshipers of appear to deify him…

Not a hard pull at all.

[jeff47]

62. Or if you actually read the context, it was part of a demand for Sanders to submit

Not a mocking of his supporters.

But keep digging. I'm sure you'll stumble across something that makes sense.

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. I hope you stretched before twisting into a pretzel like that. I'd hate for you to pull a muscle.

#BowDownBernie is a message to BERNIE, not his supporters, else the fucking hashtag would say #BowDownBernieFans or #BowDownBernieSupporters.

Give me a fucking break.

[MrScorpio]

80. You know something… You're absolutely correct.

That's my error. I actually realized that just a moment ago and I was in the midst of checking out the context of the hashtag when I came across this: https://outsideagitators206.org/blog/seattle-says-bowdownbernie/

PRESS RELEASE: Black Lives Matter Seattle ‪#‎BowDownBernie‬ Action

MEDIA CONTACTS: Marissa Johnson [e-mail]

Black Lives Matter Seattle organizers and supporters take over Bernie Sanders’ rally at Westlake on Saturday, August 8, 2015.

Today BLM Seattle, with the support of other Black organizers and non-Black allies and accomplices, held Bernie Sanders publicly accountable for his lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement and his blatantly silencing response to the ‪#‎SayHerName‬ ‪#‎IfIDieInPoliceCustody‬ action that took place at Netroots this year.

Bernie’s arrival in Seattle is largely significant in the context of the state of emergency Black lives are in locally as well as across America. The Seattle Police Department has been under federal consent decree for the last three years and has been continually plagued by use-of-force violations and racist scandals amongst their rank and file. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has refused to push any reform measures for police accountability, not even the numerous recommendations of his self-appointed Community Police Commission. The Seattle School District suspends Black students at a rate six times higher than their white counterparts, feeding Black children into the school-to-prison pipeline. King County has fought hard to push through a plan to build a $210 million new youth jail to imprison these children, amid intense community criticism and dissent. The Central District, a historically Black neighborhood in Seattle, has undergone rapid gentrification over the past few decades, with Black people being displaced from the only neighborhood that we could legally live in until just years ago. While white men profit off of the legalization of marijuana, our prisons are still filled with Black people who are over-incarcerated for drug offenses.

This city is filled with white progressives, which is why Bernie Sanders’ camp was obviously expecting a friendly and consenting audience for today’s campaign visit. The problem with Sanders’, and with white Seattle progressives in general, is that they are utterly and totally useless (when not outright harmful) in terms of the fight for Black lives. While we are drowning in their liberal rhetoric, we have yet to see them support Black grassroots movements or take on any measure of risk and responsibility for ending the tyranny of white supremacy in our country and in our city. This willful passivity while claiming solidarity with the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ movement in an effort to be relevant is over. White progressive Seattle and Bernie Sanders cannot call themselves liberals while they participate in the racist system that claims Black lives. Bernie Sanders will not continue to call himself a man of the people, while ignoring the plight of Black people. Presidential candidates will not win Black votes without putting out an explicit criminal justice reform package. As was said at the Netroots action, presidential candidates should expect to be shut down and confronted every step along the way of this presidential campaign. Black people are in a state of emergency. Lines have been drawn in the sand. You are either fighting continuously and measurably to protect Black life in America, or you are a part of the white supremacist system that we will tear down in the liberation of our people.

On this, nearly the one year anniversary of the ruthless murder of Mike Brown, we honor Black lives lost by doing the unthinkable, the unapologetic, and the unrespectable. Out of radical love for our Black brothers and sisters, we put our lives and our bodies on the line to testify to their persecution and resilience. We join together in Black love to #SayHerName and declare that #BlackLivesMatter, understanding that our love will disrupt the complicity and corruption of our anti-Black society; GOP, Democrat, and otherwise.

There is no business as usual while Black lives are lost. We will ensure this by any means necessary.

With the strength of our ancestors and for the future of our children,

Black Lives Matter Seattle Co-Founders,

Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford.

Apparently, this is both a culmination of both local issues and a continuation of concern over that incident with Bernie at Netroots.

Again, I apologize for misreading that hashtag.

[aikoaiko]

86. You maybe misreading the BLM movement with regard to Bernie

[KoKo]

66. There's actually a "BLM" Twitter Spin off with that #?

You gotta be kidding! This sounds like an organized effort (well funded) against Sanders.

[jeff47]

70. Yep. Here's their press release.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1170850

[KoKo]

63. Then why is Bernie Sanders the Target and not the Rest of the Dem Field of Candidates?

I've asked this before but, not gotten an answer.

Why Bernie? Not the Rest?

And, you don't fully answer why "BLM" has given up on the Repubs? Wouldn't THEY be the better Target since they tend to be Racist, Anti-Women, GLBT and Social Programs like Medicare and SS?

WHY?

[MannyGoldstein]

65. You write of why BLM activists don't disrupt GOP activities

Do they not disrupt Clinton activities for the same reason?

[MrScorpio]

68. At this point, I don't think that BLM is expecting a lot from Clinton...

I see them focusing on the candidate with the most potential, Bernie.

The lack of targeting Hillary is most likely a passive admission from the movement that there's very little potential in her.

But seeing how DU treats her at any given time, can you blame them if that's the way they feel?

[jeff47]

73. So their plan is to hurt the one who can help them,

and ignore the ones who will hurt them.

Do you realize how utterly insane that attempted justification is?

[MrScorpio]

83. Well, it's quite clear that they're not interested in playing politics at this point...

They're also pointing out that more should be expected from Bernie, as the one candidate who appears to have the most concern about what BLM is advocating for. So he says. What's clearly happening is that they're not cutting him any slack, after what happened at Netroots. These activists have said as much. Their message is clearly that Bernie needs to do better if they want him to earn their support.

BLM Seattle's position is that both Bernie and his liberal supporters in Seattle in particular have dropped the ball when it comes to fighting white supremacy, which the movement has identified as the primary factor behind the danger to black lives in America.

And frankly, knowing how white supremacy works myself, I see their point.

These are people who are in the midst of making demands on someone who, on paper, should be receptive to their concerns.

[jeff47]

103. Shouldn't more be expected of Obama?

Whatever they want Sanders to start in January 2017, Obama can start now.

BLM Seattle's position is that both Bernie and his liberal supporters in Seattle in particular have dropped the ball when it comes to fighting white supremacy

No, their position is we are all white supremacists. At least, that is their stated position.

These are people who are in the midst of making demands on someone who, on paper, should be receptive to their concerns.

So Obama shouldn't be receptive to their concerns? You really want to make that argument?

[MrScorpio]

109. I could laugh at this, but I won't

What you're clearly imply here is that Obama should have been operating as the "Black President," rather than as a black man who just happens to be president.

You are aware that this is America, right?

I could spend all night explaining how Barack Obama's blackness has been pretty much handcuffed the entire time he's been in office. Just between you and me, I'm quite sure that we will all see quite a different and more activist Obama once he leaves office.

But let's just say that very few white people in this country are capable of having a rational reaction if Obama suddenly expanded his degree of inner blackness. This country isn't ready for that at all.

However, we do have one Democratic who at least admitted that he was open-minded enough to entertain solutions to the problems addressed by the BLM. It just so happens that he's the old white guy from Vermont.

About this whole white supremacist thing. I've explained it before that even white liberals can still be passive white supremacists. One way that this happens is by simply saying nothing and doing nothing when black lives are taken. White supremacy is also furthered with whites simply cannot understand that the conditions and experiences of white and black people are not the same in this country. That all reactions to these conditions and not the same. White supremacy comes into play when whites, even liberal ones fail to value black conditions and experiences as much as their own. So, when you have a white Democrat standing up on a stage, blurts out "All lives matter," when every black person within earshot replies with "Not in this country," then we have a problem.

I'm sorry, but the ball has been dropped here. So who's going to pick it up?

[jeff47]

111. No, but lovely attempt to dodge.

What you're clearly imply here is that Obama should have been operating as the "Black President," rather than as a black man who just happens to be president.

Nope. I'm saying if they expect a president to change the situation in January 2017, they should also expect the current president to do so.

But hey, that gets a lot harder to argue against. So clearly I'm just another white supremacist, right?

But let's just say that very few white people in this country are capable of having a rational reaction if Obama suddenly expanded his degree of inner blackness. This country isn't ready for that at all.

Yea...there's no way to push for changing police training and increased accountability without becoming the Luther character.

So, when you have a white Democrat standing up on a stage, blurts out "All lives matter," when every black person within earshot replies with "Not in this country," then we have a problem.

Sorry, you confused Sanders with a different white guy. O'Malley was the one who blurted out "All lives matter".

I'm sorry, but the ball has been dropped here. So who's going to pick it up?

Clearly, BLM is not capable of doing so in its current state.

[aikoaiko]

67. Please don't pretend the disruptive event was in any way to help Bernie Sanders.

If BLM doesn't like Bernie, then don't vote for him. Why try control and shut down his speaking events?

[MrScorpio]

72. Again, we're intersecting politics with activism, two completely separate narratives and objectives

And of course, it's not just his attention they're trying to get. It's quite clear that they wanted an audience as well. I saw that they made a point to calling out white liberal Bernie supporters, people who should be responsive to the issue that BLM is trying to bring attention to.

The message was that more is expected from them.

[aikoaiko]

84. Really? Because the message I heard was "Fuck you, Bernie."

[MrScorpio]

85. An angry individual will say things like that...

But it doesn't mean that everyone feels the same sentiment.

[KoKo]

87. Fact is that "BLM" is only interested in taking Bernie DOWN as a Candidate...

You keep mentioning "Netroots Nation" where "BLM" confronted BOTH O'Malley and Sanders." But, only Sanders ended up being the TARGET of their wrath. O'Malley barely got a mention in the aftermath.

And, now you admit on this post that the purpose of "BLM" is to go after Bernie Sanders because he is the one who is the biggest challenger to Hillary Clinton and you accuse Bernie supporters of being "White Supremacists" while you NEVER mention Hillary!

You are so sure that Hillary will support "BLM" over Bernie Sanders that you have made Bernie the Target of this Racist Agenda? Yes...because to call Bernie Sanders Supporters "White Supremacists" while ignoring Hillary and her supporters shows Extreme Bias and actually reverse Racism.

Frankly its Damned Offensive!

[MrScorpio]

89. I mentioned before that now would be a good time for Bernie to come face to face with BLM activists

I'm suggesting a question and answer session with an audience of BLM activists in some place like Ferguson.

They're not talking now, so perhaps, they should.

Both sides need to hear each other out.

[ljm2002]

74. You say, " This is the position that the BLM movement has staked"...

..."in regards to all of the Democrats running."

Really? Please point me to the news stories about them disrupting events for ANY other Democratic candidate.

Waiting...

[MrScorpio]

88. I'm going to make a clarification here...

This is the position that the BLM movement has staked in regards to all of the Democrats running who are at least giving the impression that BLM is of any concern to them.

So, basically this should indicate that the party as a whole has a problem here. BLM has found the Democratic party in general, wanting. They're already made a statement that they feel that Dems and white liberals in particular are not addressing the Black Lives Matter's concerns.

Bernie, out of the field, is the one candidate that they're expecting the most potential. Rather than political rallies with mostly white liberal supporters, I think that it would be a good time for Bernie to announce that he wants to meet with the activists.

They should do it in Ferguson. Moderators should present questions from an audience of activists to Bernie and he should tell him exactly how his administration would improve the plight of black people living in America.

If I were Bernie, I'd reach out to BLM.

[cherokeeprogressive]

91. Please tell me exactly, SPECIFICALLY, what it means to "reach out to BLM".

Tell me what "reaching out to BLM" means to YOU, and what you would do if you were Bernie Sanders that would constitute "reaching out".

Have you, on DU, ever posted anything like "If I were Clinton, I'd reach out to BLM", or "if I were Chafee, I'd reach out to BLM", or "if I were O'Malley, I'd reach out to BLM"? If not, why not?

Would "reaching out" require a public statement saying BLM's concerns would be ALL he focuses on until he's eliminated from the race for President (for focusing on ONLY BLM's concerns)?

Does "reaching out" require firing his campaign manager and replacing that person with BLM?

Help us ALL out here, us liberal white supremacists, and put some context to what "reaching out" means to YOU.

[MrScorpio]

96. In the best scenario, ALL of the Democrats should be working to redress BLM's concerns directly...

It's quite clear from today's events that Democrats and liberals have dropped the ball here.

Obviously, an all BLM Democratic debate is out of the realm of possibility here. However, I do think that a question and answer forum, not just with BLM and Bernie, but one with all of the Democratic candidates is a good start. The reaction from BLM is a demonstration that they feel that both Democrats and white liberals are not invested enough in putting together a comprehensive plan of action in resolving the loss of black lives.

Democrats get the bulk of black votes, thus it's about time that they should sit down and listen to black voices. There's a sense of urgency as well.

Obviously, from the tone of your post, it's quite clear how you're feeling about this. And frankly, it's quite clear that many on DU aren't willing to have a calm dispassionate discussion on the problems regarding white supremacy in this country. I even wrote an OP about this phenomena once.

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. Thank you very much for the reasoned response. I truly appreciate it.

I'm a little angry, I must admit. Not at you though, and probably NOT at BLM per se. I'm angry at a DU poster for implying I could be a white supremacist because I am a Bernie Sanders supporter. I'm angry that BLM hasn't attempted to get within a city block of Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, OR Barack Obama. Had they done so, we'd surely have heard about it.

Oh, I'm more than willing to have a dispassionate discussion about how Black Lives Matter. Then maybe we can have a dispassionate discussion about the trail leading from the southeast to the Cherokee Indian Reservation in Tahlequah, Oklahoma and how a large number (thousands) of my ancestors are buried along it. Or, is that not allowed for some reason?

[kwassa]

115. How about an Indian Lives Matters group?

You certainly deserve the attention

[aspirant]

102. Okay

"So, basically this should indicate that the party as a whole has a problem here. BLM has found the Democratic party in general, wanting."

So it is time NOW to say that the AA community doesn't support Hillary and any poll that says she has 80% AA support is a lie.

Are you and BLM willing to make this statement?

[MrScorpio]

106. BLM are social activists with a specific agenda...

All African-Americans are not members of BLM.

[aspirant]

108. So how many BLM members are there

and what BLM % of the 80% are Hillary supporters?

[MrScorpio]

110. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

But I have read and heard that they're not happy with ANY of the Democratic candidates.

Still, no one has any proof that BLM is a willing tool in support of Hillary's campaign. It's only a meme given to us by people who are predisposed against her no matter what.

[aspirant]

119. Are the pollsters including them

in the 80% of the AA community for Hillary or part of the 20%. BLM is "not happy with ANY of the Democratic candidates"

"no one has any proof that BLM is a willing tool in support of Hillary's campaign." Where is your proof they are not, therefore making it a meme too, right?

[MrScorpio]

120. How would I know?

Besides I want a Democrat elect, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, I don't really care.

Where is your proof that BLM is actively working for Hillary?

People who have bad things to say about any candidate really don't need proof to back up anything they say. It's doesn't mean what they're saying is even true.

So, if you DO have proof that BLM is active tool of the Hillary campaign, I would love to see whatcha got.

Otherwise, who cares?

[aspirant]

125. What do you know of the member size of BLM?

"if you DO have proof that BLM is active tool of the Hillary campaign, I would love to see whatcha got." If you have proof Hillary isn't an active tool, show me "whatcha got"

"Frankly, I'm glad that BLM is confronting Bernie's campaign, and Bernie should be glad as well..." How do you know Bernie will be glad, if you have Proof show me Whatcha got.

[MrScorpio]

129. Are you asking me all these questions about BLM because I'm a black guy?

And do you know the difference between "should" and "will?" Because I never said that Bernie will be glad. I said that should be glad that he's being engaged by black activists who've plainly stated that they're not expecting a lot from Democrats in general and from white liberals in particular.

If you'd rather that they'd not express their dissatisfaction in the way that they believe that he's not owning up his own potential regarding the plight of black people in this country, then perhaps you'd rather they'd ignore him and expect as little from him as they seem to expect from the other candidates that they're not showing any attention to at all.

Given this meme that it's Hillary behind BLM, I think can only think that what we're hearing here is nothing more than paranoia.

Hence the reason why I've steered clear of this Hil vs Bern fiasco that's been happening lately.

The convention and nomination can't happen to soon for me. So that we may get on with beating the Republicans, who are the real enemy.

[aspirant]

138. "should be glad" is that like "Bowdownbernie"

"owning up his own potential regarding the plight of black people in this country," do you mean like this:
Obama: ‘Great Urgency’ to Address Race
Source: TDB/NPR

In an interview with NPR one year after unarmed black teenager Michael Brown was gunned down by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., President Obama says he feels a “great urgency” to address race. Obama said he doesn’t “buy” the notion that political considerations in his first term kept him from efficiently addressing the issue of race. “Here’s one thing I will say: That I feel a great urgency to get as much done as possible,” Obama said. “And, there’s no doubt that after over six and a half years on this job, I probably have an easier time juggling a lot of different issues. And, it may be that my passions show a little bit more. Just because I have been around this track for now for a while.”

So are you for stopping the killing of blacks NOW with Obama and Lynch or feeling "paranoia" over any corrective legislation

[romanic]

75. I can't roll my eyes any harder at this.

Bernie is more than Lip Service; he has DECADES of civil rights under his belt plus his emphasis on police brutality and economic justice and how it impacts POC. It's obvious BLM, or outliers in the Seattle chapter, just don't want a president who actually has the experience and empathy needed to address these issues. Those protestors want the struggle to go on because without it, they'd have nothing to fight for. It makes me sick! :mad

[KeepItReal]

127. There are people on Twitter saying Sanders' Civil Rights record doesn't mean anything

I wonder if they would tell Congressman John Lewis the same thing?

These people ostensibly claiming to support Black Lives (like mine) Mattering are moving the goalpost each and every time Sen. Sanders either agrees with the movement, reaffirms his commitment to Civil Rights, or even gives them deference to be heard at *his* campaign events.

[romanic]

128. I've seen that and deducted

that some just don't want the struggle to end, sort to speak.

[Freelancer]

77. They've REALLY blown it. Let's hope they don't pull other groups down with them. -- nt

[AOR]

97. There are so many dynamics and so much confusion...

surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement and ALL OF IT boils down to one thing--capitalist social relations (power and who has it and why and what effect that power has on the AA community and how that power is enforced and by whom and against whom). The BLM movement organizing wise is good, the protests are good, the anger and marching against the injustice of police brutality and profiling of POC is certainly warranted. However...the demands leave much to be desired as they are bogged down in mass confusion, opportunism, and cognitive dissonance on the part of many in the movement. The defining discussion at this point in history is not being addressed. It's not being addressed from many in the movement and it's not being addressed in the political arena because the political arena is dominated by Capital and the ruling class. What effect do capitalist social relations have on the AA community and what's happening on the ground ? Is that question being addressed ? Who will it be addressed by ? Al Sharpton ? Barack Obama ? Oprah Winfrey ? Don Lemon ? Black ruling class millionaires ? Black millionaire athletes and musical icons ? Bullshit to anyone who would buy into such fucking nonsense. How many Black millionaires are being shot dead in the streets by the cops Scorpio ?

To call all white liberals/progressives white supremacists is beyond laughable and those of us who are leftists are never easy on liberal/progressive reformers. Some of the leaders of Black Lives Matter are calling out white liberals/progressives. That's fine as many leftists(of all colors) call out liberals/progressives for the failure to get the reforms of Capitalism they claim possible. Black leftists do it all the time. Black Agenda Report for one. That being said...how many in the Black Lives Matter movement are actual leftists calling out the Black professional class and the Black ruling class for their complicity in allowing capitalist social relations to continue to destroy poor and depressed AA communities ? Does the Black ruling class and the Black capitalist political leadership ever address this ? They do not. They view everything through the lens of the capitalist power structure and "what can be done to address institutionalized racism" within that power structure. Good luck with that. As if the disproportional imprisonment of poor and oppressed Blacks has nothing to do with the capitalist power structure and all its insidious tentacles including the "justice system." As if police brutality and the militarization of the police has nothing to do with defending the capitalist power structure.

Some of the leaders and founders of the movement claim to be leftists. Are they ? I think a few are from what I've seen. The rest - who are not - are rank hypocrites in calling out anyone for the failure to reach solutions while the capitalist power structure continues to exploit, oppress, and drive people into poverty and despair. Police brutality is a symptom, social injustice is a symptom, economic injustice is a symptom, incarceration for profit is a symptom ect... All are symptoms of a fatal illness that is the capitalist power structure and capitalist social relations. People can try and treat the symptoms but the illness will remain.

To paraphrase a Malcolm quote -- " You put a fox in the chicken coop and then are surprised when it kills the chickens"...The capitalist power structure is the fox Scorpio and the poor, the exploited, the oppressed, are the chickens. The destruction of the chickens will continue until the fox is gone and there is not a single "set of reformist demands" that will be implemented - with any real lasting effect - while that capitalist fox continues on the prowl. Not the demands of Black Lives Matter, not the demands of Bernie Sanders, not the demands of the working class and the exploited. It's time we face objective material reality. We are all fucking hypocrites until we get rid of that fox.

[MrScorpio]

104. Well, it not like the white capitalist structure isn't run by and from mostly white people...

Addressing white supremacy as the general danger to not just black lives, but all of our lives is the correct path.

In spite of a few black rich people here and there, we still have white supremacy and the primary social, institutional and economic force running America. Even well to do people of color have dealt with this epidemic from time to time. The problem here is the myth that every furthers that money and success are the things that should technically transcend race. We see it all of the time, everyone is to blame for furthering that myth. Even after Barack Obama was first elected, there were those of the left who stated that he had personally graduated above the concerns of race in America. Riiight. It's not going to go away overnight.

If anything, even white liberals today are they themselves unaware beneficiaries and passive supporters of white supremacy. I'm not talking about white people running around with Confederate flags here. I'm talking about how the white majority supports a system of social stratification where white lives matter the most and black lives matter the least.

It's all around you, all around all of us, in our politics and culture, if you're willing to be aware of it.

Frankly, I've heard your arguments before from others, regarding things like respectability politics as a solution to black people's problems and economics as the bigger problem over white supremacy. Basically it's just another form of whitesplaining. Perfect negroes are going to be discriminated against in this country as much and imperfect ones. Excuses really aren't needed. Plus, the white majority runs our economic system primary in behalf of maintaining white supremacy. All whites are invested, whether they identify with white supremacy or not.

The point here is that the message that Bernie sent out was that he's not your average politician. However, the BLM movement clearly believes that they're getting nothing but lip service from him, even as black bodies are lying dead in the street day after day. The message that things are going to be better with Bernie isn't what needs to acquiesced to right now. According to the actives, that's just sweeping the problem under the carpet.

[AOR]

118. These divisions will not help in the long run...

even Malcolm had to face up to the facts of capitalist social relations before he was killed. I've never denied that the foundations of this country were built on the foundations of white supremacy and the extermination and oppression of indigenous peoples. I do not deny that the "founding fathers" did not have "equality for all" in mind but rather "equality" for white male land and slave owners. I do not deny that racism and profiling is also directed at Blacks of wealth also. That being said... I will not throw poor and oppressed working class white people under the bus and label all whites as "privileged." It is utter bullshit. When you're poor and homeless you fucking know it and no amount of "white privilege" will save you. I've seen the streets inside and out on this rock and if you think that the cops will not kill you or crack your skull open in a heartbeat if you're lumpen, white, poor, and homeless you are not thinking clearly. This is not to deny that poor Blacks face this at greater proportions.

You've not addressed the responsibility or the complicity of the Black ruling class in your post. You've not addressed the hypocrisy and lip-service and complicity of the Black capitalist political leadership in your post. This is not a one way street here. There are indeed two Americas but the dividing line must not be drawn between race. The dividing line must be drawn between the ruling class and the oppressed and exploited of all races. Some want social justice without economic justice and that is not possible because they can't be separated. That argument is filled with cognitive dissonance and ignorance of the history and foundations of capitalist social relations at best. At worst it is a blatant defense of the status quo, denies the existence of class, and is devoid of any class solidarity.

If racism was to magically disappear overnight would that end class stratification and the existence of abject poverty and economic exploitation of the struggling of all races and creeds under capitalist social relations. The color blind ruling class of all races will still rule over the color blind lower class of exploited and struggling workers and poor of all races. How is that not solving only half the problem of exploitation and oppression Scorpio ?

I know you don't agree that capitalist social relations are the foundations of the problem but I'm gonna keep repeating it until it sinks in for whoever is open to that message. Blame the white capitalist power structure and the white supremacist foundations it was built on all you would like but don't demonize the whole of the struggling white workers and the poor. There is no solidarity to be found in that.


“We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism.”

--Fred Hampton

[lovemydog]

130. +1

[daredtowork]

132. Reasonable in theory, not born out in practice

Since Hillary was the first to blurt out "All Lives Matter", she should be the chief target of this criticism, but she has been the least subject to disruption. The closest Bernie has gotten to "All Lives Matter" is when the reporter was bullying him on it the day after Hillary said it to try to corner him into her sound bite. I didn't hear the interview, which is why I'm vague on whether Bernie actually said it or not - all I remember is that there was a reporter trying to get him to say it.

Also, there is a difference between criticizing your allies and undermining their chances of getting elected. #BLM activists have twice targeted Bernie events - they have literally taken the stage from him, depriving him of the chance to speak. Since Bernie does not have the financial strength of Hillary, these speeches are the way Bernie is trying to build his campaign.

By knocking Bernie of the stage so a couple of young girls can have their 5 minutes of fame, this might even be lowering the chance of a Democratic candidate all together. How will the cause of #BLM will be forwarded under the GOP? Every time I see poor NCTraveler lament about this cause being once of desperation and getting people to listen, I am baffled by his or her failure to understand how Black Lives may even be losing Voting Rights if they let the GOP win.

It's clear that they don't want the alliance taken for granted. It's clear that they are sick of Do Nothing political representatives. Hell, even white people are sick of Do Nothing political representatives. There is obviously a dispute over whether ultimate causes are race or economic, but does that dispute justify shooting yourselves in the foot?

I also see victory dances over superficial "successes" (such as O'Malley's Criminal Justice Plans) when forcing such public concessions might burn so many bridges and create so many secret resentments as to block the REAL change people need later: no matter WHO gets elected. This is the political miscalculation that's being made.

[Gothmog]

133. I agree with your analysis

[MisterP]

136. and yet it wasn't Sanders who said "all lives matter," now was it?