During the 60's progressives were able to fight multiple battles, not *just* civil rights

[justaregularperson]

Without discussing specifics of Warren etc, I think there is a problem that needs to be addressed with the idea that the current civil rights fight "pre-empts" all other "fights". I think that is what is bothering many on this board.

We have a precedent: You can have a major civil rights fight while also allowing major fights on other fronts as well. For instance, the fight for equal rights for blacks in this country did not *start* in the mid 60s(MLKs movement was involved in great struggles even in the 1920's). And while it was progressing there were also serious fights on , poverty, workplace rights and law, environmental, general bigotry, general liberation, and free speech, amongst others, and MLK included many of those fights and made them his own and supported them.

I know the issues that are occurring are extremely important, but what I see on this board is many insisting that the one fight should push most every other issue to the side for it's importance, and that some would even destablize other efforts and alienate others should their important fight not move as quickly and prominantly as everyone would like. That is understandable, but not supportable. Because that is a loosing strategy for all rights and issues.

Civil Rights movements are inclusive. And that is such an important concept that non-inclusive gesturing meant to divide should also not be welcome in the same way that opposition to Gay rights is not welcome.



MHO

Thoughts?

[justaregularperson]

1. No counter discussion or arguments?

I was bracing.. :P .

[Mari333]

4. i agree with everything you said n/t

[BlooInBloo]

2. They lock threads that complain about "too much Warren", you know.

[justaregularperson]

3. While my post should be safe then.

Hopefully it is obvious it is not about "warren" but about division and alienating others who wish to try and accomplish on multiple fronts.

My hope is more that it will get folks to think so that after emotions calm down everyone can realize that they have to work **together**? And maybe it would be better not to P*ss each other off, and even better not to remove one's support from other worthy causes?

[bertman]

5. Recc. I agree. We Progressives should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

[justaregularperson]

6. Meant to include this link to a historical timeline of African American's civil rights fight

http://www.africanamericans.com/CivilRights.htm

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. All fights that need to be fought, should be fought. Some believe we should let this go....

because somehow they believe that if we address this Rick Warren thing, that somehow, something will go wrong with the rest of the other fights needed to be fought.

They couldn't be more wrong.

Also, civil rights are the BASIC rights. Without those, there is no way that other fights can be properly fought.

[tama]

11. I respectfully disagree

DU is having a fit over single stupidity at the top of the pyramid, giving it all of it's attention, letting it become divisive issue. And ignoring the real fight that is allways going at the bottom. Now especially the one that started in Greece two weeks ago and is inspiring people in many other places.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. You call honoring a homophobe who fought hard for prop 8, thereby applauding that...

"stupidity?" Someone denies a group civil rights, our hard-fought for president is going to honor him, and our anger over that is just silly, huh?

I think I understand what you're really trying to say and it's not pleasant.

[BeFree]

13. This is an opportunity

To take power away from the fundies by showing them a united front that will overcome. Since our leader goes by the name of Obama (who else is there?) we must get behind him. And being that he is the best politician we have, we're just gonna have to let him run with it, knowing that he knows the fundies are hurting our country.

[Fumesucker]

8. What many here are upset about is the perception that many think we shold wait on "rights"

I've read enough of these threads to realize that there are some here who just want teh gay to STFU and "wait for when the time is right".

Those upset by that perception think, rightly so IMO, that the time will never be "right", there will always be more important things that remain to be done.

[Political Heretic]

9. Very well said. I agree with you.

[Bucky]

10. During the 60s, liberals were the allies in the fight for civil rights, not the opponents

I still think Obama (or "the Obama") will be a net plus for equality of civil rights. But there's a whole lot of people on this board willing to to denegrate this argument as not really being about civil rights. That's pisssome.

[zeemike]

12. Not to be a contrarian but we lost most of those fights.

The war dragged on un till 74 and Reagan gutted the unions and brought us trickle down economics that allowed corporations to gobble up there competitors...and on and on.
How did they do it?(win the fight)
They divided us up into warring groups and they have been doing the same thing for years, and progressives just did not see it, or want to admit it.

[natrat]

14. too bad more people here are more concerned about this than our treasury being drained, sad

[justaregularperson]

15. Why do we have to even pick between issues?

And as for the health of our economy. Poor countries generally have much worse problems on all rights fronts. I would say they are non exclusive. If you care about civil rights you *must* also care about poverty, workers rights, etc. They go hand in hand. If the country goes down big time watch all of our remaining rights and hard fought laws be whittled away for "expediency".

[Deja Q]

17. Uh-oh

I see your point and agree with it, there are MANY issues to discuss and DU is not a one-topic forum, but be prepared to be flamed like an all-beef patty by some who must want it to be.

Not that discussing ANY topic will ultimately do anything -- inded, if people wanted change, they would be better to be polite in their disagreement. If you note a recent post of mine, I was being sardonic. Notice the responses I got.

Considering that, assuming the President-Elect or his staff read DU, would they be swayed even one iota over the objection of Warren? Not at this point.

[Fumesucker]

18. Take a look at my tagline...

It works the same way for sarcasm.. There are so many extreme positions that detecting sarcasm is difficult, particularly with no vocal or body language cues.