2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhite progressive analysis of politics is fundamentally broken.
Bill Clinton was wrong - it was only "the economy, stupid" because he took race out of the discussion as much as possible. Sista Soulja, Ricky Ray Rector.
In reality, "it's racism, stupid", just like it has been since the founding of the Republic (also sexism, but that exists in a broader civilizational context). The racial caste system nearly destroyed America multiple times prior to the end of slavery. Racism crippled the power of the working class movement as white workers found that the psychological wage was better than the material wage. Racism engendered the right wing backlash to both economic and social progress under Democrats. Racism empowered Reagan as well.
Socialists from Marx to DuBois to King recognized racism as the LYNCHpin of American capitalist oppression. FDR realized he couldn't pass his New Deal without kowtowing to the DixieKKKrats. LBJ realized the white man will empty his pockets for the bosses as long as he gets to be above the black man. Yet modern progressives try to handwave it away as "identity politics", or to try to defend the Trump vote as "economic anxiety". Who are they trying to fool? And for what purpose? Trump voters are FAR more agitated about BLM and "SJWs" than they are about jobs going overseas (which itself is more about jobs going to THOSE people than actual job loss)
Remember the words of Atwater - Republican "free market" politics are an elaborate way to scream "n**** n****". It is the cry of "n**** n***** that keeps the system going. But instead of centering the racial struggle in the fight for progressive change (as well as the social justice movements that flow directly, both spiritually and tactically, from the racial struggle), a lot of progressives focus on "neoliberalism" without a real understanding of the term, let alone a sense of how to apply it correctly to current politics. I don't think the modern Democratic Party is propping up United Fruit or invading countries to enforce IMF payments (and even if you cite NAFTA, they then fail in drawing comparisons to the TPP, which is closer to a global union protection act like Wagner than NAFTA)
At the end of the day, people on the left need to organize based on real threats and real issues, and must adopt an objective view of political realities because by chasing shadows, it inhibits our ability to organize against creeping fascism and authoritarianism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TexasBushwhacker
(20,653 posts)Shorthand for "lock up n*****s" and gun rights advocacy, shorthand for "shoot some n*****s".
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Iggo
(48,235 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Bravo.
brush
(57,391 posts)(and even if you cite NAFTA, they then fail in drawing comparisons to the TPP, which is closer to a global union protection act like Wagner than NAFTA)
WTF it that doing in that OP?
The TPP is now like union protection?
Something is very wrong with that.
JHan
(10,173 posts)it demands countries in the TPP region unionize. The TPP could lift the floor of labor standards even higher, but it will make a difference in places like Vietnam, which has long overtaken China as the preferred destination for outsourcing:
brush
(57,391 posts)is raising a pay scale of $10.00 a day in Vietnam for instance, will eventually lower pay for union workers here.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Longer supply chain (biggest one), less educated workforce (even a HS educated worker in the USA beats out their Vietnamese counterpart), more resource intensive, bad PR, clashing work culture, etc. Not to mention there's a non-zero chance China closes the South China Sea or flat out invades (very low chance but not zero)
If you raise labor and regulatory costs in Vietnam to a certain point, the benefit of shipping jobs overseas dissipates because sourcing in the USA is less of a headache.
Forcing low wage countries to raise labor standards via an omnibus trade agreement is effectively a tariff, because it blunts the one advantage to overseas production, labor cost (US labor is still MUCH more productive)
JHan
(10,173 posts)brush
(57,391 posts)
betsuni
(27,255 posts)
Dem2
(8,178 posts)I've personally pulled jobs back into this country for any or all of those reasons.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Dem2
(8,178 posts)I imagine you're just kidding/stirring up crap.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)If it were made in the US. We have access to affordable electronics ONLY because they are not made in the US.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)You do realize you are talking to somebody who manufactures products competitively in this country, correct? You do realize that there are thousands of products that are produced in this country cost effectively.
I was joking above and I was assuming that you were just starting trouble - you can't possibly be that out of touch. Are you older that 25?
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)Knowing everything about iPhones is actually my job.
VCRs used to cost $1500 or more back before free trade. I happen to be old enough to actually remember how expensive electronics were to buy.
HRC2020
(13 posts)Its sad to see that progresives automatically refuse to even consider any FTA. NAFTA did help a lot of people by reducing the prices on essential commodities and increasing the buying power. Winners and losers everything has its own share. The positive thing about FTA is that it brought out millions out of poverty
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It is entirely unenforceable and the parties that negotiated it know that.
https://ourfuture.org/20151125/now-vietnam-thumbs-nose-at-tpps-unenforcable-labor-provisions
JHan
(10,173 posts)Those stipulations are not as enforceable as many would like , but it's not like we don't have options. The US has violated FTA's for lesser reasons, and any country that won't adhere to the principles stated in the agreement can be threatened with sanctions or punished using other methods. I'd rather organizations like the ILO be strengthened to give it real teeth in combating violations re labor standards.
That a trade agreement would even mention labor standards, when typically trade advocates dislike labor and environmental clauses in agreements, is an improvement.
It is not perfect but it is not the worst thing ever either.
Not enforceable as in:
There is no body of any sort that would appeal in order to challenge on this rule. Either it would be a foreign labor organizing body which would not be representative of a bargaining unit or it would be a local group of laborers who would also be declared as not being representative.
Never mind the point that the body that you would have to go before in order for there to be a finding against the nation involved is almost entirely comprised of those supporting or in the pocket of those same multinational corporations violating rights to organize in the first place.
This is fluff at best and does nothing. There is no way to give this any teeth. It was dropped in to placate, not enforce.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)wants to show me what I'm missing. In fact inserting non-binding language like this only serves to give it this kind of cover as something that can be cited to prove that the TPP is pro labor.
JHan
(10,173 posts)because we cannot have it both ways. On principle, we cannot complain about a trade agreement infringing on our domestic laws, on the one hand, while wanting the trade agreement to infringe on another country's domestic laws by enforcing standards . To put it differently - this is a diplomatic way to encourage member states to lift their labor standards via unionization.Otherwise, a binding clause may make other governments feel vulnerable to trade penalties, heck I can see members of Congress even making this case. So the principle is there, and if that principle is violated , it gives leverage to another member state to pressure the other to raise standards. Trade Deals aren't sledge hammers and shouldn't be, they're good faith agreements. And member states will find that it is much better to abide by the principles than risk violating them.
As FJT said in another post, the productivity of a HS worker here is greater than a low skilled worker in Vietnam. There's outsourcing to Bangladesh as well, but the productivity of garment workers there is so low, American companies won't give them higher wages. What is the economic reality of this? If the TPP demands in a binding agreement that these standards be enforced , workers won't get higher wages, they'll get no wages at all because foreign companies will simply go elsewhere.
And let's flip the argument for perspective... There's always been resistance against raising the minimum wage to even $10.00 here - should another country with a higher min. wage refuse to trade with us because our wages are too low?
This is why I stand by the President Obama's view that many have made "perfect the enemy of good" re the TPP.
And why does the myth persist that trade deals have been horrible for everyone? They haven't. We benefit daily. No argument from me that historically they have been a handout for corporations - *most egregiously with NAFTA where mega heavily subsidized Agro Businesses glutted the mexican market with sweet corn, killing off small mexican corn producers. However that is only one part of the story. Mexico's economy( and ours) improved, and without corruption and a futile drug war, we'd have seen more benefits but Mexico's birth rate has fallen from 6 to 2 and immigration to the U.S has slowed considerably.
And the trends are undeniable: More people have been lifted out of poverty over the past 60 years than the previous 500. China's growth and expansion of her middle class means she's no longer the favored destination for cheap outsourcing of labor.
All I'm saying is much of the criticism of the deal is based on imagined alternatives and over simplistic arguments.
instead of economic realities .
JCanete
(5,272 posts)in a nation. It would be unreasonable to demand that they pay in some places what we pay here, as cost of living is different, or at least I agree that that would not be a trade model that would help these nations to industrialize into the modern age. I don't necessarily agree that this is the only way we can lift up other nations, and we certainly shouldn't do it without clear standards, and I'm not interested in giveaways to our corporations for when they make a decision to go overseas, because the labor is cheaper, and we've removed tariffs. It is true that over time labor gets more expensive in these places...at which point the companies jump ship again.
As to trade deals being all bad, no. The question is are they more bad than good as written. As to being hand-outs for corporations, I get the feeling that that's kind of the point. A trade deal is bad if it is a transfer of wealth up to the top. I don't care if that looks in the short term, like gains for even some at the bottom, because it is a huge depletion of natural resources, which is exploited not foremost for public investment, but for lining the pockets of shareholders and CEOs. I welcome being corrected on this, but I have yet to see a compelling case to be made that the pie can grow. Wealth comes from somewhere. It has a direct corollary to real-world materials that it can buy, and those are finite. The Earth itself does not grow. We exploit more of it. We get more efficient with those resources, but its just the same resources.
What about the environment? We are trashing it and I'm just guessing here, but the Sierra Club had nothing good to say about this or other trade agreements, in their ability to tie the hands of governments when it comes to mitigating against the destruction of the Earth.
People being lifted out of poverty is good. Getting value out of educating them and propelling them into the technological age we live in is good. Reducing the populations is also good. But we have so much technology at our disposal and enough resources to do these things without using a consumption driven method that continues to do more harm, not less, to our future prospects on this planet. Unfortunately, everything we do has to be about the money.
I realize that this is just a lot of vague ranting. Because of this conversation, I'm just now starting to actually look into TPP, so the next time we have a conversation about it I'll be far more informed. I'm just pretty skeptical at the moment that it is actually good for us.
JHan
(10,173 posts)the fastest way to stop this destruction happening is to get people out of poverty.
And we aren't in a great position either, because the Trump administration will gut the EPA and we've had serious environmental issues of our own. But America is wealthy and can afford investment in developing renewables that will be viable in the future. What we cannot do is expect poor developing countries to operate like we do when they're trying to get a footing. In poor countries, natural resources are still the main source of economic prosperity.
The great thing about trade partnerships is the way they facilitate the exchange of information and technology - the TPP can be another avenue for this kind of exchange.
Since you're looking into the TPP again, check out this link. - http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/08/04/election-2016-tpp-trade-nafta
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)What's the basis for that statement? How do we know a HS worker in the US would produce, say, more pairs of jeans in an hour than a low-skilled worker in Vietnam would?
JHan
(10,173 posts)I read this last year:
http://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/markets/vietnam-s-textiles-low-productivity-could-eat-up-tpp-benefits-3421740.html
"Vietnam's labor productivity in manufacturing garments, textiles and footwear is less than half that of Indonesia and 4.6 times lower than Thailand, according to the International Labor Organization.
According to Truong, a value chain of textile and garment industry starts at creating fabric, cutting and sewing, then moves on to distribution of final products.
At present, 85 percent of Vietnamese enterprises focus on cutting and sewing, which are labor-intensive. To meet growing demand of textile products from other markets in the TPP, the only way is to increase labor productivity as “a worker cannot operate two sewing machines simultaneously.”
The director added that only 25 percent of Vietnamese textile firms are able to supply raw materials by themselves while the rest still import from foreign countries, especially China. Only four percent can manufacture their original designs while one percent are responsible for branding and marketing of the final products.
“I’ve never thought that taking part in high-value stages of the chain or increasing the localization rate of a product is the main target of textile industry. Improving labor productivity is the only way for Vietnam to boost the industry,” Truong emphasized.
The director said that to brace for the TPP, Vinatex has instructed Vietnamese textile firms to analyze their competitiveness, focusing on enterprises’ current strengths, sewing and cutting, and product groups exempt from import tax under the TPP. In the long term, they will expand to manufacture the products that require additional investment but have promising demand."
note that poor infrastructure would affect productivity as well. We could do a lot better here but we still have advantages compared to Vietnam.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)From my days as a teacher, I can say I'm not too confident the average American high school age kid would be very productive at something labor-intensive.
JHan
(10,173 posts)(loling for HS joke)
..but FJT also touched on some other things: outsourcing expenses, culture clash in management, language barrier etc.
azmom
(5,208 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)as my point about Corn illustrates. The effects of the U.S corn glut in the Mexican market hit the South of Mexico harder than the Industrial North. Also,a lot of criticisms about NAFTA and Mexico conflate poor domestic policies re credit markets, efficacy of regulatory bodies and a bunch of other factors with the effects of the trade agreement.
azmom
(5,208 posts)and that is just not true. It's been a failure by every conceivable measure. NAFTA increased immigration. It did not decrease it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/nafta-20-years-mexico-regret
JHan
(10,173 posts)Another reason is that North Mexico was able to take advantage of the opportunities rather than the South.
So no I am not comfortable judging it as a "complete and utter failure".
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)It wasn't a *complete* failure. There were more losers than winners among the working class, but there were winners. North Mexico is among those winners.
The answer isn't protectionism though; the answer is fair trade. Protectionism is a welfare chauvinist policy.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)There's a great fair trade store in the town where I live. But it only impacts a fraction of those who produce goods.
Even in the US we've experienced the decimation of labor unions, stagnant wages, etc. With racism playing a key role in enabling all of that.
Trade is going to happen. Who's going to enforce labor rights (right to organize, right to a living wage, right to clean and safe working conditions, etc.)?
The language is there in the TPP, but who's going to back it up? That's a valid concern, but what's the solution?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Well for starters the language is NOT there in the TPP. Unless the language is entirely comprised of platitudes and placation.
Every one of these Free Trade bills has been negotiated by the same multinational corporations. We should not sign them. Period.
Yes, trade will happen no matter what but when we sign these things we tie our hands from being able to ban imports from countries that are engaging in bad behavior whether it is slavery, killing union activists, or environmental concerns. The whole reason for these treaties is to protect the flow of work to the weakest regulated and lowest wage countries by preventing the citizens of those countries and the governments that represent them from being able to make decisions and consequently regulations regarding this.
As to our own problems with a lack of Unions, stagnant wages, and racism, only domestic action and legislation will fix those problems. Increasing the minimum wage, passing card-check rules in order to unionize, and massive reform of our justice system on an almost unprecedented scale will start to address those concerns.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)That, I think, is the big question. Will there be sanctions for violating that which is in, for instance, Article 19.3? How does global society deal with corporate dominance and give some teeth to the ILO?
The only way imports are going to be banned is if people en masse refuse to buy them. That won't happen. So, there needs to be a governmental solution. There need to be trade agreements that aren't negotiated by multinational corporations, but how do we make that a reality?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)A nation can ban imports. That is something that can and has happened in the past.
I will not argue for the TPP at all. The provisions are wholly inadequate, the decision making body is completely inaccessible, and the whole thing is entirely undemocratic by design.
There is no sensible way to expect the body that is empowered by this trading pact to be concerned with labor, the people, or the environment. To large multinational corporations those are merely "externalities" and this trading compact is merely a device of those same corporations.
So, no. The TPP is NOT good for labor at all. It hurts people of all races and nationalities, particularly the poor and working class.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...it's one thing to ban Cuban cigars with the help of anti-Communist propaganda. It's another thing to ban electronic devices, cars, clothing, virtually everything sold at Wal-Mart, etc.
Banning imports isn't going to happen on a grand scale.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Until it happens.
Individual products could be banned based on what people are willing to accept.
But what is your actual solution to this?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But I think it's fair to say progress will be incremental, as it usually is. We aren't going to go from NAFTA and CAFTA to perfection.
The US is extremely materialistic. Peeps want their gadgets, designer clothes and cheap goods. And cheap necessities, as wages have been stagnant for decades, while automation wipes out jobs and a college education becomes increasingly expensive.
Makes me sad watching people waste so much of their energy chasing shadows. The racists who forced the 2nd amendment and electoral college upon us haven't gone anywhere since this country was founded. Every grievance stems from hatred of the other, I hear it weekly from Trump voters here in the supposedly "left" northeast.
HRC2020
(13 posts)HRC ran the most progresive campaign of our times and her losing can only mean that either America is rejecting progressive ideas or the fact that racists and misogynists took control. very well said
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Racism is a tool of class oppression. It is used to divide and weaken the working class. So it is racism serving to mask class warfare.
Recommended.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)For one thing, most anti-racist activists are on the political Left; most right-wingers, if not hard racists, are soft racists in the "racism is over"/"blacks need to fix their own communities"/etc variety. So where are the anti-racists who are not advocating for uplifting the working class as a whole?
Also racism frames how government spending and transfer payments are seen. For example, the home mortgage interest deduction is one of, if not THE biggest government handout there is, and a handout going almost entirely to wealthier people, actually scaling with one's personal wealth held in housing.
That's such a third rail nobody will even CONSIDER touching that, despite how ridiculous it is. But the same upper-middle class Whites who are getting this MASSIVE handout that essentially equates to 4 or 5 TANF (even the more generous AFDC would equate to half of the HMID at its peak) programs, will cry about minorities on "welfare". Why do you think that is? Because massive handouts are just fine as long as they're not going to THOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE PEEEEEEEEEEEEOPPPPPPPPPPPPLE
TexasBushwhacker
(20,653 posts)is a handout to the banking and construction industries. When interest is deductible, people are willing to pay HIGHER interest. When interest and property taxes are deductible, people are willing to pay higher housing prices than they might otherwise. Sadly, there are plenty of people shopping for homes that really don't care about the price of the house as long as the payments are affordable.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)because the right wing denies that there is such a thing as class in America at the same time that it engages in blatant racism as a strategy for fighting the class warfare.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(I'm talking about Sanders supporters as an overall group) are AGAINST the idea of the Democratic Party or the Left in the larger sense fighting to end racism?
That the fact that we didn't stop supporting Bernie as a result of his early omissions on those issues meant that we as a group didn't prioritize the antiracist fight?
I agree that the Democratic Party hasn't always been as strong on these issues as you or I would have liked, but hasn't it been the party leadership that usually chose the go-slow policy?
(believe me, the guy who wrote the "S______m S______e" thread does NOT speak for the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters-and I'm not sure he was ever actually a Sanders supporter at all-if he'd showed up at a Sanders meeting anywhere, I think everybody in the room would have called him out for his stupidity and cluelessness and shown him the door).
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Social justice or people of color. It's not just false, it's a tremendously low blow. It makes me sick.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I think that (quote from post #211) is the issue. A failure to understand that beliefs and attitudes transcend class and not the other way around, as evidenced by tens of millions voting against their class interests election after election after election. A failure to appreciate the relationship between social justice and economic justice (the former encompasses the latter). Those who speak of needing to address those things "equally" or "at the same time" or as separate entities don't really grasp the relationship.
FJT's OP (and other posts in this thread) desperately need to be understood if we're to have sustainable progress and economic solidarity, as opposed to continuing to ride the pendulum of political power back and forth. And read the article I linked to in post #117 for a prescription as to how we create a multiracial alliance.
Also, check out the articles in post #201. The labor movement's success and very survival depends upon anti-racism, and many veteran union organizers recognize that, yet it gets little discussion. Instead, some leftists go along with right wingers in labeling and then dismissing social justice concerns as "identity politics." Once again failing to understand the relationship mentioned above.
Though seemingly quite different, Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders share the same crucial failing.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)hate it when ppl.do ot to me, so i try not to do it with others.
There were, and are, plenty of people around here saying that on a fairly regular basis, fyi
ymetca
(1,182 posts)With so-called "right to work" blossoming in the Southern states, as more minorities gained union status in the Northern ones.
And very little conversation about the racist subtext underlying the suspicion of Bernie Sanders...
kcr
(15,522 posts)Cannot rec this enough. 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But that argument is not a universal view of ALL white progressives(or even among Sanders supporters).
Can you accept it as a valid position to say that we need to deal with race AND class? That neither should be dismissed(as Bernie's primary opponent totally dismissed class and economic justice issues)?
Thanks for pointing out the Clinton responsibility for Democratic neglect of racial issues...I never understood why so many of those who attacked the Sanders campaign on that were giving the C's a pass on that.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)You CANNOT deal with class without centering race. It's not even an issue of "walk while chewing gum", it's an issue of "you have to stand on your two feet in order to walk".
Bigotry based on race, gender, orientation, gender identity is essentially taking a gun to one of your kneecaps and pulling the trigger.
Also Bill = / = Hillary (Hillary is *markedly* to the left of Bill, and always has been, except for that ugly Mark Penn strategy in 08, this election was in many ways her returning to her roots), and he gets KIND of a pass because similar to FDR, while he opposed the racist zeitgeist of their era, they had to pander to it in order to stay in power and make some positive changes for us.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't hear anybody saying that the fight against racism should be set aside-and denounce anyone who actually would say that.
And nobody that I can see is calling on antiracist activists to stop calling out racism and stop trying to defeat it.
I guess what I am not getting here is...why does it have to be race first, and then eventually(decades on or possibly never) class?
It sounds as though you are saying that economic justice and the fight against corporate domination on the backburner UNTIL racial injustice has completely vanished. If you aren't saying that, what exactly are you saying?
In the Sixties, from everything I read, dealing JUST with race ended up meaning the anti-racism movement was brought to a state of dormancy after 1969 or so.
Why shouldn't we assume it would go the same way a second time?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)People have a fundamental misunderstanding of what social justice and economic justice are, or how they relate to one another, as I attempted to explain in the following thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512669872.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)And there are very few minorities there. Guess none of those people are actually really poor since they are white. Those hunger pains and decades of struggling are all just figments of their imagination.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)they can't see it, and therefore can't relate to it, or sometimes even believe it's real. But it IS real, very real.
Then people get frustrated and the "fuck the WWC" statements come out, and before you know it, not only has no progress been made, things are actually made worse.
I wish there was an easily thought of solution.
Unfortunately, there's always going to be some incorrigible people who can't be helped, but there's also got to be many who can be reached.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But must the left do nothing OTHER than fighting racism, must we agree that we can't deal with greed and income inequality and corporate dominance of life UNTIL every vestige of racism is wiped out?
My recollection is that that approach, in the Sixties, ended up leading to the freedom movement basically going extinct from 1967 'til the early Eighties. And that Dr. King and Malcolm X were both calling for an approach that dealt with class in addition to race(an observation that caused great offense to a lot of AA posters here when some made it in the spring). What is your view of what happened in that era, compared to that?
A lot of the people you say "don't get it" think the fight against corporate power and income inequality doesn't conflict with the fight against racism, doesn't put that fight on the backburner and can go on at the same time, and that the struggles are interlinked.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...what I wrote in my last post. Racism is the primary tool enabling the economic conditions (the economic inequality, corporate power, decimation of unions, etc.) you rightly decry.
Let me put things another way: absent racism, the Republican Party would cease to be a viable institution. The vision of progressive economics could then be realized.
Of course racism (neither the overt nor the softer kind referred to in post #9) isn't going to be eliminated completely, but a multiracial alliance threatens the ruling class more than anything I can think of. Building such an alliance is paramount to sustainable progress. Recognizing the primacy of bigotry, particularly racism, is the first step toward a solution. Otherwise, we're stuck riding the pendulum. Power will go back and forth at the federal level, while Democrats continue to get dominated at the state and local level.
That some view threads like this as an attack on white people is sad but only serves to reinforce the point forjusticethunder so eloquently made.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And, in spite of some of the choices made by the Sanders campaign, I think the vast majority of Sanders supporters agree with you.
So can we agree that the primaries are over and that this is something we can now have common ground on?
That this is no longer a Bernie v. Hillary dynamic?
We need a multiracial alliance for social and economic change.
If anyone says we don't they are wrong.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Someone who can deliver this message that we both agree on to a wide audience. If a progressive politician said exactly what we just read, I would support them. It ties both sides together perfectly. It is what I wanted to express but could not figure out how to express.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But even posts like the one by FJT will be viewed in that light by some, even though the OP doesn't mention either candidate.
I've been trying in numerous threads (including this one) to convey the same idea as FJT, as I think nothing matters more in terms of postmortem analysis.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)The problem is that there's this idea (promoted mainly by hacks like Thomas Frank who was the original "white bigotry is really economic anxiety guys" writer) that angry bigoted Trump voters are angry and bigoted because of economic factors leaving them behind. If that was true, they'd already vote for Dems. In reality, their views on economics are informed by their revulsion at the idea of their "tax dollars" going to THOOOOOOSE PEOOOOOOOOOOPLE. Even their emphasis on manufacturing is part of that, because it's not so much an economic issue as a "we want 1952 back" issue.
As long as a super majority of White people vote against cultural and racial inclusion and tolerance, it won't matter what economic appeals we make, because their understanding of economics is framed through that visceral hatred of inclusion and tolerance.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Very well said.
brush
(57,391 posts)I'm in agreement with the rest of the OP, fighting for racial and economic justice equally, but the TPP?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)alluring enough to some people to then deprive them of their own economic security and possessions, but only when they don't know that they can have something better. The point is the distraction...the misdirection. People don't just go..."er..hey now let me see, you want my house, and my teeth and my car and my kid's college fund...but you say I can kick some people of color when they're down? Sold!"
. That just isn't how racism works. Racism does work because people want to justify to themselves as much as to anybody, why they are going to take what they covet from other people. And when it is weaponized by people at the top against not just those minorities but against people within the "preferred race" as well, that is where we see a powerful effort to make sure people understand that the reason their economic status is getting more insecure is because of immigrants and welfare...etc.
So I disagree with you that economic anxiety has no relationship to the big picture. I haven't read Franks, but on the surface, his argument about the Democratic party looks entirely sound to me. Sure, when you get into the upper middle class and higher it starts to be more about colonialism than exploiting economic anxiety, because those people have to justify to themselves why they're living so large and other people are suffering so much...but what gets packaged and sold to the rest of us is "the reason we can't have nice things is those brown people."
So now, we are trying to make it all about racism first as the root rather than the flower over here, to the point where we are insisting that we should not peel people off from that GOP with an economic message that redirects their fear and anger where it belongs... that instead we are somehow going to combat their racism simply by saying "you're racist and that's bad, and we shun you." How could that possibly get through to them given the propaganda they've been fed? Enough of them don't even realize they're racist, and are not going to be lured by the clarion call that their parents who voted for Trump, and who they love, are bad, deplorable, people.
What we all seem to agree on is that capacitance for racism is the tool, and that demonizing marginalized communities is the tactic. It is the very reason that racism is so damn entrenched here. The people have been told a story and everything they see confirms it..anything that contradicts it is probably filtered right out. We can give them a message of hope that doesn't shit on any poor people or immigrants or minorities. We can give them their boogie man. The GOP and the media have already done the work of making people distrust the "liberal media." It's pretty damn foolish of us to be the ones that actually legitimize it. We should tell people "That's right, it shouldn't be trusted...because it's owned by mega-corporations...now when is the last time you've heard of a mega-corporation that wants to raise minimum wage and taxes on itself? Does that look like a liberal mouthpiece to you?"
We have to show people that the messaging is about the con. That means we can't ignore the money...we can't get to the economics later. It's the point. It's the reason.
Response to Garrett78 (Reply #39)
brush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's one thing in your terminology that sounds close to what some of us have said, yet in your view it isn't, and I'm trying sincerely to get my head around where you're coming from on this:
In the other thread you linked to, the OP had a phrase that pretty much said "economic justice is contained within social justice".
What I and some others close to me have said is "let's fight for social and economic justice at the same time, with".
As I read those phrases, they seem essentially the same.
What is the distinction between them as you see it?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)When people say let's fight social justice and economic justice equally or at the same time, that represents a misunderstanding of the terms and their relationship to one another. That's what I was getting at in the thread I started about those terms. FJT, in this thread, has eloquently stated the problem, but it's clear that many are failing to get the point.
I just made a post (#143 in this thread) that further explains my point of view. See also posts #22 and #142, as well as all of FJT's posts in this thread and JHan's posts in this thread.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)FJT's OP and post #9 are excellent. I can't say it any better than that, and I've tried to in numerous threads.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thank you guys
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)TRUTH!!!!!
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)As I said, we'll just keep riding that pendulum until we recognize and address the primacy of racism. Absent racism, the Republican Party ceases to be viable.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the concerns and issues of those white people as well though. Listening and responding with the right kind of compassion, the right kind of messaging--messaging that does not compromise on our principles of equality and justice for all--but does not do its best to alienate these people as either malicious or foolish, is important if we're going to undercut that divisiveness that is being sewn by powerful interests.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The point of this thread is to recognize what's really at the root of those "concerns and issues." If "progressives" can't even recognize the primacy of racism and keep propping up this "working class whites/economic messaging" dog whistle, we won't bring about the unity necessary to change the economic structure of society. That's the irony of suggesting we should dismiss the role racism plays.
Now, does that mean we scold people for being racist and demand that they stop being bigots? Of course not. But we have to recognize the role racism has played since the founding of the US in enabling economic conditions that we decry. Recognize and address. Not deny and address. I think Reverend Barber, NAACP President in North Carolina, is probably on the right track. And there are organizations like one I'm a part of that are working on building a multiracial alliance through recognition of the role racism has played in our nation's history.
brush
(57,391 posts)of the Dem party base are POCs.
Why is this even being debated?
We should not even be calling ourselves progressives if we're not fucking smart enough to know this.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)have few of any minorities, it's hard for them to grasp what white privilege is, and they will walk away feeling insulted or like they've been called racists. I don't know how you solve that, since racial injustice is very, very real in this country.
I guess that's why it's always been a difficult subject for people to talk about, escpecially for those who haven't seen it or experienced it for themselves.
Talk about white privilege to a white guy in an impoverished area, and there's no POC around for comparison, and the white guy is gonna ve insulted.. "how can *I* be privileged, i'm fuckin broke!".
Meanwhile, most minorities, if they were to see that reaction, would then rightly think "how the fuck can you NOT see white privilege, i see it all around me every day!"
It sucks.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)So sick of this bullshit.
If this garbage doesn't stop before the next midterms I'll vote for Independents and say to hell with both organized parties.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)I make a thread saying racism is the most important aspect of the leftist struggle (something that much more insightful socialist thinkers than me stated) and you call it an ANTI WHITE PEOPLE thread
i can't even.
Capitalism without racism is an emperor without clothes. It's racism that undermines the class solidarity needed for ANY leftist reform, whether social democratic, socialist, Marxist, etc. Notice that even in Europe, the far right is surging as Europe gets SLIGHTLY less homogeneously white.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Any discussion about how grievances are prioritized and which are ignored makes people defensive. At the crux of it is power and we don't talk about "Power" enough. There are slogans about power "The corporations have all the power" or "The government has all the power" but beyond that, no in depth discourse about how to take power , challenge power structures or even understand power structures. In a year where "otherism" was on full display, there were so many pathetic, meandering attempts to deny that white nationalism even played a part in Trump's appeal when white nationalism is the thread that makes up the tapestry of American Patriotrism, summed up so perfectly in "Make America Great Again".
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Can't fit it on a bumper sticker.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Anti-White, then why did you make the title as "White Progressives" instead of "Many Progressives"?
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Though that specific turn of phrase "anti-white" is an Alt-Right buzzword.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)If you start a negative thread that collectively stereotypes or chastizes an entire fucking group of people it's an anti whatever the hell group it's directed at thread.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Bias is bias. If you and others like you keep lambasting whites for everything under the sun, you will drive us away. But apparently that does not matter. Since, the rhetoric here has been whites, especially white men can fuck off.
kcr
(15,522 posts)If this is the shit that pisses you off, there's another party down the hall, to your right.
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)That is NOT ok. In fact, it's so offensive that just being here and reading some of the bullshit I'm hearing is making me less likely to continue my lifelong history of standing up against racism and bigotry. It seems that I have spent my entire life (I'm over 50) caring about minorities and their equality and justice and what I'm hearing here is that they don't give a flying fuck about me. You tell me why the hell should I bother?
Iggo
(48,235 posts)
JCanete
(5,272 posts)it because you expect gratitude, then while I appreciate that you are doing it, I would suggest you take stock of your motivations. People are hurting. People are continually or continuously the victims of institutional racism in this country.
Demanding that they be the ones who find decorum and grace when they are suffering the most from abuse is not entirely reasonable. And they spend their days out in the world having to present that decorum and grace, as they field both micro and macro aggressions from society. People kind of need to vent.
I think you and I can weather the occasional accusation about our motivations or the possibility that we are out of touch, and I think that we can and should be thoughtful about how we do look at these issues. That said, I disagree constantly on these boards, and with some premises of this OP and have said so. I disagree when people forget that rural white people aren't bad people, that they are just people who are products of social norming, and as such can change.
I suggest you don't take it so personally, and continue to engage here and elsewhere in the world, and don't forget that people who don't entirely trust you or your motivations are not bad people either...these are the lessons they've learned over the years, and if you don't like that lesson, you have to continue to be a counter-example to it.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)And you can usually tell it's the right thing to do when your gut tells you that you can't just ignore or overlook something simply because opening your mouth will not be welcome, popular or painless.
I don't expect gratitude. My motivation is simply being able to look myself in the mirror and KNOW that I always try to do the right thing, not just the easy or convenient thing. The easy thing it to make assumptions about people you disagree with...like Trump voters. It's easier to assume that they are all bigots than it is to inspect and accept the flaws and mistakes from within.
I'm saying the things I am because I'm being honest and because I want to make a difference. I want to help people understand that they are going about this battle all wrong. If the approach towards resolving a problem is turning off people on your side then there is something wrong with the approach.
Unfair, and false accusations of being a racist is one of the most deeply hurtful things you can toss out at someone. In doing so you are saying that person hates others based on something that other person has no control over and for doing absolutely nothing. Let that sit with you for a moment. Would you want to be accused of being that sort of person unfairly? I'm guessing not.
There are really not a mass amount of actual racists in this country. The few there are tend to be obnoxiously loud and disgusting. They are evil and disgusting...and easy to spot. They are loud and proud of their vile hatred. There is no hope for those people, period. Next you have people who aren't really racists but have been treated like they are too many times and they are resentful for that reason. These are the ones that can be seen displaying the confederate flag not because they are racists but because they just want to piss people off because they are mad and are lashing out. Then there are people who aren't racists and aren't bitter or trying to piss anyone off. Pretty much all people are impacted by stereotypes and biases to some extent, but they are not conscious or intentional. This may be seeing a young black man walking towards you at night and feeling uneasy and a little afraid. This is societal bias at play, but it's often not intentional and not done consciously or with ill will.
Too often this societal bias is treated as if it is done on purpose, planned and intentional when it's not. I am NOT saying that minorities should just accept and be OK with societal bias or actual racism...in NO WAY am I saying that. What I am saying is to stop assuming that everyone who is white who doesn't agree with someone of color is motivated about race. That's really usually not the case. People are not that simplistic in most cases. If you think someone might be doing or saying something because of race then ask them what their motivation is. Ask them to explain. Have a goddamned discussion about it. Just don't assume because doing so rarely provides the right answer.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)double-standard applies here. You just explained how you shouldn't accuse people of being racist, you should ask them what their motivations are.
Your first post here said 'Just what we need, another anti-white people thread.' That kind of implies racism does it not?
And that's the point. Try to have as much patience on this side of things as you do on the other. Try to ask about and understand motivations here as well, and not take the very same kind of umbrage, or ascribe the same kinds of motivations to people here, that you decry them doing against others.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)It seems to be the same group of people who keep starting these same threads that DO lump all white people together and in a very offensive way. Many times I have attempted to engage in productive conversation with those starting these threads and in almost all cases there is ZERO openness or willingness to have anything that goes beyond "They are all racists, all of them, fuck the white working class, they voted for hate, they all.....yadda, yadda, yadda." At this point I'm just goddamned sick of seeing it. It's not helpful, productive and actually makes the problem even worse. I ignored this thread for a few days because I was getting to the point where I just didn't give a fuck about doing my part anymore. That's NOT where I want to end up and it's NOT who I am.
No understanding and growth ever comes from guilt trips, blaming, shaming and accusing. All that garbage EVER does is create toxicity.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts) JCanete
(5,272 posts)strategic and humanistic grounds, but I would suggest trying to take things less personally. There is a lot of frustration and pain, and white people(I am one by the way) predominantly delivered a bigot into the White House who is sewing and emboldening racist sentiment. People have been suffering severely at the hands of institutional racism not to mention the overt kind, and they are tired and scared and deeply hurt that this is the other side of the last eight years of something that offered hope for their future.
And they rightly assess that some of us don't really get their day-to-day struggle. Not that they are the only ones struggling, but the kind of fear and stress that comes out of not being able to trust even hospitals to care for you or your loved ones as well as they will white people, not to mention the threat from authorities like police, which is very real--particularly in some communities, but really everywhere--takes an emotional toll.
So it's understandable to me that people would see certain messaging and think "hey...you are saying lets not fight racism!" It's also understandable to me that to some degree, that divide seems to fall along racial lines. That said, I disagree to an extent with the accusation, at least as it pertains to those leaders who are espousing economic justice. I don't think Sanders for instance, is missing the racial component at all, one of the things he's said that I think is so important, is what the op and other posts in the thread are saying, that racism is a tool used to maintain an economic divide. People take umbrage at his denigration of "political correctness" and "identity politics," again understandably, and maybe he could have been more careful with his terms, but on the other hand, maybe he's using right wing language that already has legs, and altering it to his own meaning to a purpose.
But between the media, which is wholly off the mark when it talks about this stuff, and even some posters here who have repeated the notion that we've become the party about bathrooms--which in my opinion is a very flawed way to think about our party or to discuss our direction, because of course, we should always be standing up for civil rights--there is something people here feel is being lost in translation, and their feeling is that it is us who are losing the plot, because we aren't under the same constant threat..because we don't see racism day-in and day-out.
Anyway, I think that's where that frustration is coming from, and I myself do not take umbrage at it when it comes my way. I get frustrated myself because I think that that sort of language is strategically damaging, and you and NoGoodNamesLeft are cases-in-point, but then walking away from the party because you get your feelings hurt is also strategically damaging to our cause. What do you care about at the end of the day?
Conversations like the one the OP started are opportunities for us to share our differences of opinions on these issues, and its an opportunity for those of us on both sides to grow, if nobody walks away from the table in a huff, or for that matter, strongly attempts to push others away from the table, as we've seen some examples of in this thread.
So stay. Learn something. Teach something.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)And it is an enormous MISTAKE to callously toss around the hateful and disgusting label or racist or racism in such a careless manner. It alienates people. When people are alienated they stop giving a shit. I am telling you that is exactly what is happening to me just by reading all the threads collectively attacking white people in one form or another since the election. I have spent my entire life standing up against racism and bigotry. The stuff I'm reading here has actually made me LESS LIKELY to do so in the future...I find it that offensive. If someone on your side is telling you this shit needs to stop then perhaps it's time to stop and think before tossing out ugly labels, or better yet...listen, REALLY listen. Sometimes things aren't always quite what they seem to be.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I am imploring you to consider. Be careful of a double standard. If you are standing up to racism and bigotry then you know how much persists in the world...you know how much patience you have to have with people in order to erode that. I suggest you have that patience with people here who are understandably feeling under threat.
I would suggest you take your own ego and your own hurt feelings out of it. If you walk away or people push you away, really a combination of both, well everybody is at fault, but you not less so.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)But I do not agree that there is a lot of racism and bigotry. There is a very important difference between these two things. Most people have bias and it's virtually always subconscious. Racism is intentional. To call someone who subconsciously has bias a racist is not only unfair and wrong...it is the very thing that divides people and causes race relations problems. You can't just throw around such a horrible label so carelessly.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Not 8%. 80%.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)put him into office?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The point is it's absurd to suggest that only a fraction of Trump supporters/voters are racist.
To say nothing of the fact they openly supported an overt bigot who was endorsed by the KKK, which is unheard of among major party candidates in recent history.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)I'm beyond sick of all the very negative threads that are directed collectively at one race. This would not be OK if it were written towards any other group. It's bullshit and I'm sick of it.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Race, Gender and Class impact us and sometimes they intersect.
Those who experience bigotry are more aware of it than those who don't. To draw an analogy: My experience of sexual harassment is a shock to the men I describe it to, some are compassionate and empathise but some deny it's a problem because they don't experience it,* are blind to it and they haven't walked in my shoes so to speak. The poor experience class discrimination more keenly than the affluent. Dark skinned people are more aware of racism than whites generally. And if dark skinned and poor, socio-economic deprivation is a daily reality.
Acknowledging these realities isn't a way to make you, a white person, feel bad. Similarly, when I point out sexual harassment issues to men I know, I am not trying to put them on a guilt trip, I am raising awareness.
It is important we pay attention to the way bigotry has infected our institutions, how it has shaped the allocation of resources, and how it is used as a tool to distract, divide and exploit the poor.
The point isn't to admonish or make anyone feel guilty. Those who engage in divide and rule rhetoric want guilt and anger to be the response, instead of thoughtful engagement.
The GOP succeeds because they have boldly pursued a political strategy appealing to people's irrational fears. It explains why so many Trump supporters believe "illegal immigrants" voted by the millions in California, that Obama is a Muslim Agent, and those Mexicans are stealing all the jobs, and the exit polling data confirms these fears. Those who prioritized the economy favored Clinton, those who prioritized terrorism and immigration favored Trump.
Frame the OP within those parameters, in the context of Trump's xenophobic campaign rhetoric - Trump appealed to the ID of resentment in the hearts of millions of Americans.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)You are looking at everything through the lens of trying to make it fit into what you already believe instead of stopping to consider it may be something different. Listen to those who complain about immigration and weak borders...they have been told that illegal immigrants are taking their jobs and being given welfare "handouts" from their hard earned tax dollars. They care about this so much because they are busting their asses working so hard and going without and they are pissed that they are "paying for those not working." It's not about race at all to these people in MOST cases. It's about their own financial struggles and them living paycheck to paycheck and not getting ahead despite working hard. They don't give a shit about the color of anyone. They are just frustrated and angry because the GOP has convinced them that all these freeloaders are sucking up all their tax dollars while they are sitting on their asses doing nothing.
As far as muslims go...that is fear for safety and being afraid of terrorism on US soil. They don't really care about the religion so much in most cases (especially northern states). Doesn't make it right, obviously.
Immigration to Trump voters is mostly about the economy and fear of terrorism. For a small percentage it's about race, and that small number of racist assholes are disgusting. That's just not the motivation for most of the people who voted for him. The GOP has been demonizing poor people for a very long time. Many minorities fall into that category, but so do a hell of a lot of white people. It's time to start focusing on things that help EVERYONE universally.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Yes exactly! They have been "TOLD" nonsense and it's effective because it resonates as a cultural and ethnic issue. How is it that Obama can be referred to as "Deporter in Chief" by immigrant activists and also the man who let in hordes of immigrants by the millions? Even one of Trump surrogates admitted , in a true Uncle Ruckus moment, that "hispanic culture is taking over" and "we have a problem" . If that isn't pandering to whiteness, what is it then?
Are we going to forget the RNC convention and what Trump tapped into? Fear of Terrorism = Fear of Muslims. Flynn, who is now his advisor, tweeted that fear of Muslims is rational. Not all Trump voters may be aware of these details, since we always make the mistake of assuming people are more informed than they actually are, but Trump's rhetoric was so insistent and consistent that they couldn't miss the whiff of hateful xenophobic rhetoric - what they chose to do with that information is on them and them alone. A significant percentage of Trump voters think Obama is a muslim agent - last poll I saw had that figure in the 60's or it may have been higher. They also thought he was going to take their guns, and he was going to destroy the American way of life. In their bubble of existence they have been fed fear - fear of mexicans, fear of muslims , fear of their own shadow. This fear isn't new, it already existed ready to be exploited, so aptly described in the LBJ quote forjusticethunder's quoted.
We do them no favors by pretending their fears are not irrational. Call it what it is and confront it, and all the OP does is amplify the origins of these fears , which were symbolized in "Make America Great Again".
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)"As long as a super majority of White people vote against cultural and racial inclusion and tolerance, it won't matter what economic appeals we make, because their understanding of economics is framed through that visceral hatred of inclusion and tolerance."
"Make America great again" and "Take our country back" are examples of dog whistling. So is the "white working class" narrative.
If "progressives" can't even recognize the primacy of racism and keep propping up this "working class whites/economic messaging" dog whistle, we won't bring about the unity necessary to change the economic structure of society. That's the irony of suggesting we should dismiss the role racism plays.
Now, does that mean we scold people for being racist, demand that they stop being bigots and think all will be well? Of course not. But we have to recognize the role racism has played in enabling the very economic conditions that we decry. Recognize and address. Strategically diminishing racism is key to changing the economic structure of society. It's the key to sustainable progress. If we fail to acknowledge and address racism as a root cause, we'll just keep swinging back and forth on the pendulum of power.
I think Reverend Barber, NAACP President in North Carolina, is probably on the right track. And there are organizations like one I'm a part of that are working on building a multiracial alliance through recognition of the role racism has played in our nation's history.
brush
(57,391 posts)The OP is advocating fighting equally against both racial injustice and economic injustice.
Re-read it. If you still think the same after that, time to re-examine your progressive bona fides because you're telling a little too much about yourself.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)eom
brush
(57,391 posts)I'm not sure about his position on the TPP though.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)and seeing another thread title going after white people really chafed my arse and led me to respond.
brush
(57,391 posts)but what do think about the contention that we need to battle both racial and economic injustice?
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)Iggo
(48,235 posts)
jalan48
(14,351 posts)
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Locally, I'm quite involved in a Racial Justice Organizing Committee, as well as the local chapter of the NAACP. Efforts are under way. In the bigger city to the north, numerous groups are at work.
Ending racism altogether (both the overt and the softer kind referred to in post #9) is not feasible, but building a much more substantial multiracial alliance is. And it's vital to addressing the economic conditions we rightly decry. It's vital to sustainable progress. Otherwise, we're stuck riding the power pendulum.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Whatever choices or mistakes Bernie's campaign managers made, it was never a question of his SUPPORTERS being against such an alliance.
It's just that they didn't see supporting the person who seemed to be the status quo, non-transformative candidate as they way to prove they wanted such an alliance.
Why was the choice to back her in the primaries rather than to run someone as a specifically antiracist candidate in the Super Tuesday states, caucus states, Illinois, New York and maybe California? A candidate like that could have gone into the convention with enough delegates to get huge concessions from BOTH candidates. And in caucus states, I think the Sanders campaign would have worked with such a candidate and helped her or his delegates get full representation in Philly.
jalan48
(14,351 posts)Putting more POC in the ruling class doesn't make the overall set-up any fairer for the 99.9% of us. My guess is that when push comes to shove the .1% will opt to keep their money and power and eschew racial equality if it gets in the way.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)People need to learn the very distinct difference between racism, which is conscious and bias which is NOT conscious. I have always stood up strong against racism, sexism and every kind of bigotry I see for my entire life. Reading some of the complete and utter bullshit I see on this site regarding race has turned me off so deeply that I'm not sure I give a shit about standing up anymore. I'm white. I grew up a hell of a lot more poor than most minority people I know. Before my car broke down I had the worst damn car in my neighborhood, which is predominately a minority neighborhood. I have shittier clothes, too. But yeah...because I'm white I don't really understand what it means to struggle. Fuck that bullshit. People of color aren't the only ones who don't or can't get a fair goddamned shake it life. Your economical circumstances have more to do with determining your opportunities in life. If you are black and wealthy you are going to have an easier time of it in life than if you are white and poor. My family has black members, hispanic members, native members, wealthy members, middle class members, poor members, liberal members, conservative members, educated members, uneducated members...and the minority members are better off financially than I am and they have less struggles than I do. My struggles matter just as fucking much as yours do, thank you very much. If the Democratic Party says fuck you to me then I'll be saying fuck you to them, just like those rust belt voters did. Until people here get that through their thick damn skulls then idiots like Trump will keep on winning.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Nobody says you didn't struggle. Nobody says you can't be less economically secure than a person of color. But economic insecurity is not why most GOP voters vote for policies that will make them less economically secure. GOP voters "vote against their own interests" because racism and bigotry warps their view of "their own interests" into "keep resources away from minorities and other undesirables".
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)Only a very small minority of GOP voters are actually racists/bigots. The others are just selfish and have fallen for the lie that the government is using all of their tax dollars to give free money to people who don't want to work or who are doing drugs, drinking and having many kids with different men. This same attitude exists even in areas where there are virtually no minorities and it's directed towards poor white people who get and need help. Maybe some of you who don't seem to understand this have never actually been to poor areas in the northern areas of the country, but you really need a wake up call because there is less racism than people here believe. There are plenty of biases and stereotypes that people do subconsciously, but that is NOT racism. Racism requires some actual thought and conscious beliefs. Biases do not.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Yeah while poor whites may be included as an afterthought, the subtext of the whole "free money to lazy people doing drugs, drinking and having multiple kids with different men" is black people. Usually though, white people who are on welfare is glossed over. Welfare is generally seen as a "black thing". Sure this isn't universally true on the micro level, but that's the general belief on the macro level.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)To prove my point...
Read the comments from this article from the Bangor Daily News at the link below.
http://bangordailynews.com/2016/12/02/politics/trumps-welfare-policies-could-look-a-lot-like-maines/comments/
After reading those comments go and look at the Maine census information. Only 1.4% of Maine's population is black. 94.9% are white.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI225215/23
In 2013 18% of Maine residents received foodstamps. The overwhelming majority of those people are white. The people commenting on that article KNOW they are mostly white. Race is not an issue with those GOP voters. The economy IS.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/food-stamp-snap-benefits-enrollment-participation-totals-map.html
Keep ignoring the actual FACTS and keep ignoring the very CLEAR and HONEST message these voters keep trying to state...that it IS the economy and you will be guaranteeing that Trump and the GOP stays in control in 4 years.
Just because you THINK it's all about race doesn't make it so. People are way more selfish and self absorbed than you think. The majority of white people don't give a flying fart about race. They care about their own monetary interests and they are easily convinced by the GOP because the Democratic Party is too goddamned pre-occupied with trying to make everything about everything other than the one thing that matters most to them...their pocketbook.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,021 posts)we need an agreement on what racism is.
As Voltaire said,
I'll bet I'm not the only one who disagrees with the meanings you ascribe to racism and bias. In fact, there is something called unconscious bias specifically to distinguish it from conscious bias.
And whatever you definition of racism, I know it differs greatly from mine, as yours leads you to believe that most Trump voters are not racists, and mine leads me to the opposite conclusion.
OnionPatch
(6,212 posts)What legislation do we have planned or want to pass that's going to do away with racism? Who is it on our side that's against such legislation? Do our economic goals conflict with this magic anti-racism legislation?
These kinds of threads make me scratch my head.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Right out of the gates after the election "Identity Politics" was dismissed and blamed and used as the reason #WhyTrumpWon.
The OP is calling out those progressives who engaged in this, reminding them that "Identity Politics" is necessary and that a focus on class war alone will not lift everyone up when bigotry is baked into our institutions. Communities have particular concerns, and those concerns have to be addressed - The reason why the obsession with WWC's is so wrong headed is because there are working class people all over this country of different hues. Yet, the regional concerns of the midwestern white working class voter came to represent all working class people - as if working class people of color don't exist or don't exist in places like New York and California.
The Civil Rights movement provided the umbrella under which other movements mushroomed into prominence, now "civil rights" encapsulates women's rights, native american rights , gay rights etc. In other words, it took a "race" movement to make America check herself and begin the process of change. If you want examples of reform that will tackle discrimination and lift the quality of life for all in the process:- criminal justice reform is a great starting point, combating voter suppression is another, lifting standards in our public schools another and improving infrastructure in the most poverty stricken communities -from roads, to bridges to water, is another.
jalan48
(14,351 posts)It's unrealistic. Racism is definitely part of our economic system and has been from the beginning of our country. We have a better chance of altering our economic system and creating more opportunities for everyone than we do of ending racism. Racism will end, if it ever does, through the education of all people.
JHan
(10,173 posts)It's the idea that if we just focus on economic basics everything will change for everyone which is simply not true. Who gets what , when and how has shaped our economic policy for decades. Programs that get gutted, poverty programs that are struck down, the fuss about foodstamps and "Dependency syndrome", all these issues have been racially coded to smear the social safety net. The claim that "We don't want hand-outs" - has its genesis in racial politics. So when some "white progressives" pile on dismissing seeing these issues through the lens of race, it is self-defeating. Social Justice is the starting point to ensure that there is equal access to gains in the economy, which we all contribute to regardless of race.
jalan48
(14,351 posts)It also says it's "racism stupid". It implies racism is at the base of everything and economics is secondary. I don't agree. Racism is a part of our economic system and has been since the beginning. How do you end racism as a stand alone issue? You can't. However, we can create economic and educational opportunities that will allow people to work and live together and thereby increase the possibility that racism will be lessened.
JHan
(10,173 posts)It's the resistance to acknowledge how " whiteness" has framed economic policy. Donald Trump's entire campaign strategy was an appeal to "whiteness", "white resentment". This didn't just happen - he knew what he was doing. It is the history of America in a nutshell. Unfortunately it is "whiteness" that blinds us to the commonality in our struggles, it is "whiteness" that blinded your average Trump voter from understanding that they had more in common with a struggling immigrant, and a voter in Detroit, than Donald Trump who shits in a gold toilet.
There was no attempt in the OP to divide the two, but acknowledge that a mindset informs the other: Culture determines policy.
jalan48
(14,351 posts)That's what rulers and politicians do to stay in power. I agree Trump used race. How do you stop the next candidate from doing exactly the same thing? It's always taken place throughout human history. The bigger question is who is doing the dividing and why? Do you think the .1% cares whether a black person joins their exclusive monetary club? What we need is a shift in how our society is structured economically. We can't have a handful of individuals having the combined wealth of millions of Americans and expect people not to be swayed by "it's that other group of poor people's fault".
As a part of this restructuring it's imperative that all Americans benefit, not just white people. How can we work together to make that happen? Headline's like "Fuck the white working class", which I have seen here on DU don't help. It keeps the focus on those at the bottom and not those setting the rules and reaping the benefits.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)when a lot of Americans think like this:
We can't have a handful of individuals having the combined wealth of millions of Americans and expect people not to be swayed by "it's that other group of poor people's fault".
The fact that people are swayed by "it's that other group of poor people's fault" is WHY we can't restructure society. A huge part of Steinbeck's observation of the American (white) poor seeing themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" is that the psychological wage of racism allow themselves to see themselves as superior to "those people" instead of seeing themselves as objectively in the same class. Therefore they don't need "handouts" or "assistance" because they're "hard working" unlike "those people"
jalan48
(14,351 posts)Telling others who are like ourselves (poor and working class), to basically fuck off is the problem right now. The owners love it when we fight among ourselves.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And FJT's other posts in this thread. And my posts in this thread. And JHan's posts in this thread.
Take out the primary root and the tree will fall. Diminish bigotry, particularly racism, substantially and the Republican Party ceases to be a viable institution. First, though, people need to stop being in denial about how much impact racism continues to have, about how much it drove support for Trump.
Nothing would threaten the ruling class more than a massive multiracial alliance. Reverend Barber in North Carolina offers a promising prescription.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)to do, i fear that there are always going to be some who are successfull at exploiting key components of racism; humans are naturally biased or distrustful or fearful of those who are "different". Enlightened people recognize naturally occurring bias when they feel it, knowing that that it is a primitive defensive human instinct, and move past it (basically realizing, for example, that people are equal regardless of race).
Peddlers of racism nurture the natural biases in people, stoke them like a fire, and try to turn them into hate. One of Trumps real skills, as opposed to his fake business genius, is to stoke people's emotions and get em hatin'... this election makes me think being a business man all this time kept him from his true calling (that being a petty dictator... sad thing is i'm joking but it's actually true, sigh)
I guess we can never eliminate racism but we can sure go a hell of a lot further towards making it an obsolete concept...
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Article from Nate Silver's 538 blog:
What’s the difference between hardship and anxiety? Hardship, as I’m using it here, refers to a person’s present-day economic struggles: poverty, joblessness, falling wages, foreclosure, bankruptcy. Anxiety is all about what lies ahead — concerns about saving for retirement or college, worry of a potential layoff, fears that your children’s prospects ar en’t as bright as your own were.
The role of economic anxiety becomes even clearer in the data once you control for race. Black and Hispanic Americans tend both to be poorer and to face worse economic prospects than non-Hispanic whites, but they also had strong non-economic reasons to vote against Trump, who had a history of making racist comments. Factoring in the strong opposition to Trump among most racial and ethnic minorities, Trump significantly outperformed Romney in counties where residents had lower credit scores and in counties where more men have stopped working.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-saying-trumps-win-had-nothing-to-do-with-economics/
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Racism is the primary tool used to enable the economic conditions we're all rightly decrying.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Honest question. Please explain what you mean.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Re-read the OP and post #9 by the same author. And remember that the concept of whiteness was invented to divide and conquer.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)And I have read what you and bravenak have suggested.
I don't understand how trying to help the American working class will make anyone worse off than they already are financially. Especially in minority communities where POC are (in general) hurting more than whites.
As for social justice, I always just assumed everyone already knew about how we progressives have long fought for equality for ALL. And we will continue to do so.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)the working class separated. Economic inequality will not end until we all come together. We cannot do so with racism in the way. We cannot ask some of the working class to stfu and deal with th racism of the rest of the working class. That is unfair to do. Therefore, in order for all racial demigraphics to come together, we need to end the artificial bullshit created to categorize us by race. We cannot ask minorities to ignore the race factor since it is a big part of their economic problems.
We cannot fight the power until we stop fighting each other. We cannot stop fighting each other until we effectively destroy racism. We wont end it completely, but with all of us working together rejecting it vigorously, it will subside enough for us to unite.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Marx in Das Kapital.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)The left in general, and progressives in particular, have been fighting racism, and will continue to do so.
We fully understand how the oligarchy constantly tries to divide us, (Bernie talked about it frequently) but racism as a wedge issue only works for the oligarchs with Trump-type voters. We don't need the Trumpsters for economic inequality battles. Let them build their stupid wall. We've got more important things to do.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If we were, we would not be where we are right now. We have folks on the left decrying political correctness, using social justice as a slur and trashing minorities for focus on 'identity politics', you know, for trying to fight things that harm minorities specifically. Until we all get behind social justice, political correctness (you know, that think where it's not cool to call me a nword), and other things that harm the disadvantaged, we will never ever ever get traction on anything.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)"...to help the American working class will make anyone worse off than they already are financially."
Nobody is saying that.
I wish I knew a better way to convey what FJT (and I) are saying. Maybe check out post #42 by FJT.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)You have Trump voters right this minute tearing their hair out because Trump and Ryan are going to try and kill Obamacare. But they *voted* for that. Why? Because they have been trained to see everything, including economics and class relations, through a racist lens. Class solidarity is impossible when one segment of the working class sees the other as "THOSE PEOPLE" who are inferior in whatever manner.
This is what I am trying to say.
There's actually 2 bases in American society - race is the base, then class above it, then superstructure.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)There are very few of them who are not racist. Maybe we could peel off some of the ones who voted for Obama twice, but I don't think it'd be worth the effort.
I do however, see plenty of millennials who give me hope. So at least there is that.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)That is extremely telling. Especially since conservative culture is more and more actively rejecting anything outside its bubble. I can't see that number getting any better, though maybe Trump being a dumpster fire might sway them. Even Trump white millennials are less racist than their parents.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)NPR did a piece a while back that reached the same conclusion as the following article: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/millennials-are-less-tolerant-than-you-think.html.
I kind of hate the word "tolerant," but the point stands.
JI7
(90,454 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)1995 or post 2000 as there is not a truly set date yet) as group much more conservative, MUCH (more than double us Millennials, more than Gen X, even Baby Boomers) more church going, and are more white than us. I can only surmise they will be less tolerant as well. Bodes ill for the left in the USA.
I am a millennial (I just turned 26) I also live in London, so am not privy to day to day dealings with that many Americans born say 1995 to 2010 (again there are a lot of arguments about when iGen aka Gen Z starts, I lean towards 1995), other than some expats and also online.
I was basing my opinions off some studies being done so far on iGen (Gen Z). I think the jury is obviously still out, and it depends on when you make cut off dates for the Millennial/Gen Z birthdate barrier. I absolutely do think that many of the teens I meet and interact with are definitely more conservative than me and lets say people who are 5 years older than me to a few years younger. I was 10 when 9-11 happened, I was 12 when FB started (I closed my FB account in 2007), and 16 (and in university already) when the financial crisis started in 2007. I am amongst the last several years born to not be utterly immersed in social media from the pre-teen years onwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z
According to Forbes in 2015, the generation after Millennials, Generation Z, made up 25% of the U.S. population, making them a larger cohort than the Baby Boomers or Millennials.[34] Frank N. Magid Associates estimates that in the United States, 55% of Plurals are non-Hispanic Caucasians, 24% are Hispanic, 14% are African-American, 4% are Asian, and 4% are multiracial or other.
Generation Z are predominantly the children of Generation X, but they also have parents who are Millennials. According to the marketing firm Frank N. Magid they are "the least likely to believe that there is such a thing as the American Dream" because "Generation X, the most influential parents of Plurals (Generation Z), demonstrates the least credence in the concept of the American Dream among adult generations." According to Public Relations Society of America, the Great Recession has taught Generation Z to be independent, and has led to an entrepreneurial desire, after seeing their parents and older siblings struggle in the workforce.
A 2013 survey by Ameritrade found that 46% of Generation Z in the United States (considered here to be those between the ages of 14 and 23) were concerned about student debt, while 36% were worried about being able to afford a college education at all. This generation is faced with a growing income gap and a shrinking middle-class, which all have led to increasing stress levels in families.
Both the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession have greatly influenced the attitudes of this generation in the United States, with the oldest members of Generation Z being children when the 9/11 attacks occurred. Turner suggests it is likely that both events have resulted in a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity among the people of Generation Z with the environment in which they were being raised. The economic recession of 2008 is particularly important to historical events that have shaped Generation Z, due to the ways in which their childhoods may have been affected by the recession's shadow; that is, the financial stresses felt by their parents. Although the Millennials experienced these events during their coming of age, Generation Z lived through them as part of their childhood, affecting their realism and world-view.
A 2014 study Generation Z Goes to College found that Generation Z students self-identify as being loyal, compassionate, thoughtful, open-minded, responsible, and determined. How they see their Generation Z peers is quite different from their own self-identity. They view their peers as competitive, spontaneous, adventuresome, and curious; all characteristics that they do not see readily in themselves.
A 2016 U.S. study found that church attendance during young adulthood was 41% among Generation Z, compared with 18 percent for Millennials at the same ages, 21 percent of Generation X, and 26 percent of baby boomers.
Generation Z is generally more risk-averse in certain activities than earlier generations. In 2013, 66% of teenagers (older members of Generation Z) had tried alcohol, down from 82% in 1991. Also in 2013, 8% of Gen. Z teenagers never or rarely wear a seat belt when riding in a car with someone else, as opposed to 26% in 1991.[46]
Research from the Annie E. Casey Foundation conducted in 2016 found Generation Z youth had lower teen pregnancy rates, less substance abuse, and higher on time high school graduation rates compared to Millennials. The researchers compared teens from 2008 and 2014 and found a 40% drop in teen pregnancy, a 38% drop in drug and alcohol abuse, and a 28% drop in the percentage of teens who did not graduate on time from high school.
snip
They don't like drugs or gay marriage, and they HATE tattoos: Is 'Generation Z' the most conservative since WW2?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html
Teenagers born after 2000 - the so-called 'Generation Z' - are the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War, a new study has found. The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage, transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials. The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.
Sociology experts class those born in or before 1945 as the Silent Generation; people born between 1946 and 1964 as Baby Boomers; those born between 1965 and 1980 as Generation X; and anyone born between 1980 and 2000 as Millennials.
Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild, as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that age. When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they had conservative views.
snip
The First Generation Of The
Twenty-First Century
An introduction to The Pluralist Generation
http://magid.com/sites/default/files/pdf/MagidPluralistGenerationWhitepaper.pdf
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)sees the things mentioned in that survey as a given. I haven't met very many transphobic or homophobic people under 18 and I've met quite a few in that cohort.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)See post #71 and the following: http://www.npr.org/2015/06/22/416390022/is-the-racial-tolerance-of-the-millennial-generation-overstated
I do think 'racial tolerance' and appreciation for the impact of historical injustice is far more lacking in millennials than we'd like to believe.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)but I think it's better than their parents. Low as fuck bar. But I think white millennials clear it.
The thing is though that the generation as a whole is a LOT less white than previous generations.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)without actually addressing the entities pulling the levers of power. That means we cannot ignore the economics side of the equation and expect those fuckers to do anything but to laugh at the infighting amongst the plebes.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Hand to hand, one on one. Oh right, the guy you're fighting takes roids.
Right before the fight, you take a gun and put a bullet in your left elbow and left kneecap.
What are your chances of winning? I'd say, not much, because one side of your body is more concerned about crippling the other half than about beating up the big muscly steroid guy beating your ass every day.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)There is a machine that keeps pumping out ignorant voters. At the same time it's bonking them on the head. Then it drops little leaflets down saying, "guess who bonked you on your head...those black and brown people over there, but don't worry, you're the one's in charge.
And so those people start beating up on black and brown people, and eventually black and brown people and some white people start to organize against that.
Now here's our choice. We can start fighting the the ignorant racists, you know, bonk them on their heads for real, and then the machinery will send little leaflets down saying see!, what you need is more force of law behind you...
and they can fight back more viciously, and we can fight them back more viciously, and in the mean-time, that machinery will occasionally be sweeping down, bonking us on our heads and cleaning out our pockets.
OR We can say "LOOK THE FUCK UP ALREADY DUDES! LOOK AT WHO IS ACTUALLY BONKING YOU ON THE HEAD!"
We can deliver them the real villain that is causing them pain. That's just not possible if we don't point up.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)How do you get them to act on that knowledge if you've done nothing to counteract racist brainwashing? White privilege is basically advanced societal Stockholm Syndrome; people with Stockholm Syndrome can't perceive reality properly. The machine bonking them on the head is a loving but stern patriarchal protector to them.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)how that "librul media" is corporate owned. We don't do that. We act as if its legit, while the Republicans trash it. They win in that exchange, and really they're just proxy winners of the very owners of that media.
Here, I don't know if you want to wade or maybe skim through this, but I posted elsewhere on what I feel the psychology we're dealing with looks like and why I think we need to approach it a certain way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2673932
Actually, here's the relevant stuff:
This is a puzzle of human psychology and we can't ignore how humans think...not if we're going to change how they think.
People are too easily led by fear. Loss avoidance and insecurity in the face of scarcity(real or perceived) do not make people more rational and capable of being humane, or of abandoning the foundations that their realities have been built around. That's just too damn scary. Under these circumstances, in those rare cases where they do suffer cognitive dissonance about how they think they and the world ARE, versus what actually presents itself, their own efforts to resolve that dissonance only further drives them to accept stereotypes or other justifications for continuing inequality. The limbic system is in charge, and the Cerebral Cortex entirely its bitch.
So making the mistake of not giving these people something to actually focus their fear and anger at, while simultaneously telling them that people of color are not getting a fair shake, is all kinds of triggering, because what they hear is that we are coming for "THEIR" stuff, and its already getting harder and harder for them in this Kleptocracy we call America, and while this has absolutely nothing to do with immigrants or minorities, they've been told the opposite their entire lives.
....
But that all brings us full circle to forces of economic injustice and the fact that predatory Capitalism fuels social injustice out of greed. In turns, scapegoating or making communities invisible and vulnerable is all about the bottom line..it's all about the big con. Are some of the fuckers racist as hell? Yes...but there's one color they believe in above and beyond all else. Everything else is a means to that end.
We can erode racism. We can do it big. But we have to do it by being clear about what we're going to get for everyone(otherwise the rich will continue to use welfare and immigration as wedge issues). We need to do it by being clear and loud about how we're going to give people what they are ENTITLED TO, and that we're going to do it by taking it from the people who have hoarded the world's wealth from all of us. And because that is part of our narrative, talking about racism and inequality is no longer perceived as a threat...it's no longer about raising taxes on the middle class to give to the poor...its about making their lives better by taking our worth back, and its about making the rich institutions that are bleeding all of us, the actual racists...because they're the ones using tactics and propaganda to make us kick down and not look up.
People generally think of themselves as good. They want to be good. Their own self-worth is tied to that, which is why they work so hard to make others sub-human when they intend to exploit them, or feel like they are threatened by them. It's part of the human narrative structure. That's why us channeling that opposition away from scapegoated communities and towards the rich who have gotten away with branding themselves as geniuses and job-creators and philanthropists for far too long, is so damn key.We do that and we can change people's paradigms. We brand a system that is screwing everyone as racist and people can start distancing themselves from anything with that characterization, because we didn't already put them under that umbrella for them to take umbrage at even while they grip its handle tightly.
Am I being too Pollyanna here? Oh yeah. I don't actually know that this is a winnable fight. Money is power and the top 20% have 80% percent of it at their disposal, and they will certainly invest highly in maintaining the status quo. I'd love to see the fight waged though.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)I too am not sure, actually quite doubtful even, if we can get through to people who have been brainwashed for years to kick down like they do.
However, I recently tried a very simple thing w/a poor-shaming relative (that is who these people beat up on when there are no minorities to kick around). Anyway, she was going on about some neighbor of hers on welfare. During a pause in her rant, I simply said "Why are you blaming people with no money and no power for your problems?" Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I thought I saw a glimmer of... something in her eyes for a brief moment. I don't dare call it an understanding. But it did seem to make her think about the absurdity of her position because she took a longer then normal pause before answering w/the good ole "But my tax dollars! She (the neighbor) is wasting my tax dollars!!1!"...
I don't know if that simple sentence I used did any good. But I like to think that maybe I planted a seed there.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)its the only place i've gotten progress myself. I have a couple Russian friends who came prepackaged with a lot of racism, and their first years here only reinforced that, because that was their filter. I've definitely gotten through to one of them by continuing to point out the machinery behind his racism and the practice of divide-and-conquer. I've been consistently undercutting his assumptions with facts and some empathy building, while pounding home the message that he is being played by people at the top of the system who are laughing all the way to the bank.
What I usually point out to people in short order is that if they actually follow the money, it's not in the pockets of welfare recipients...its not in the pockets of immigrants. The percentages are stark and pretty incontrovertible. That and media ownership are usually places I start because there aren't any good spins on those realities.
With him, I have admittedly done a kind of shaming, but one focused not on morality, but on his own ego and the notion that he is allowing himself to get played...and why would he let himself be made into such a tool for other's bidding and amusement? Its a little harsh, but we're good friends. And these days, I find that he often backs me up in conversations with others.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Capitalism and racism are inextricably linked. And I do think part of fighting racism is emphasizing that shared class interest for working class liberation. The problem is that you have to talk about it, you can't beat around the bush in fears of offending those racist sensibilities and hope it'll work itself out later like many socialist movements have done. The thing is that it can be done, and has been done.
Imo, Rev. Barber gives a very strong starting point on what needs to be done https://thinkprogress.org/rev-barber-moral-change-1ad2776df7c#.1pxa7sr3d
The achievements of the first Reconstruction are particularly telling. Look at the progress that was built on anti-racist fusion movements. All it took was for a critical mass of whites to reject racism and work together against shared oppression. And conversely, the reactionary white backlash also destroyed the gains of poor whites.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)It's interesting that you mention Reverend Barber. At a meeting I co-facilitated last night, someone mentioned Rev. Barber. And after seeing your mention, I went and found this: https://thinkprogress.org/rev-barber-moral-change-1ad2776df7c#.2np6adrme.
Now, religion doesn't inform my point of view. I'm an atheist and I get very annoyed by the pray it away mentality. *But* I can't argue with what Barber is saying in that article. I'm glad to see my local library system has his book, as I intend to read it.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)But imo Rev. Barber appeals to that shared sense of justice that all good people share, whether religious or atheist (fwiw I consider myself religious and that actually informs my leftism - when we say "for justice thunders condemnation", the first thing I think of is Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers)
JCanete
(5,272 posts)divider for the purpose of somebody else's conquering agenda is a good place to hammer early in my opinion, because it gets people receptive to hearing it...it lowers their defenses because it comes at them from an unexpected angle, and doesn't start with a premise that they are bad, or that they are going to end up paying for something. Emphasizing instead, that they are being played and robbed blind in the process helps to frame the argument in a way that I think helps us start dismantling the messaging, in no small part because we can actually point to the messaging as such, even as we dismantle it with facts.
And all the while empathy building. And all the while fostering the notion that we need each other to fight a common enemy, rather than fighting over the scraps, which is a humiliation at its hands. Note: I'm not looking to recreate a bastille day(as if that could ever happen here),so I'm not suggesting we vilify the rich per se, but creating common cause is important...and the promise of reward for the effort is also.
I haven't heard of Reverend Barber, but I'll definitely look him up. I'm sure he'll help to inform my thinking on this matter.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)So, no, we can't ignore the economics side.
It's not about fighting racism and economic injustice equally, as some say in their misunderstanding of the OP. It's about the former enabling the latter.
JHan
(10,173 posts)"inhibits our ability to organize against creeping fascism and authoritarianism" this, a thousand times.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)A handful of the replies are excellent. I don't have much more right now as I'm pondering some of the replies.
Thanks for starting this discussion.
TygrBright
(20,987 posts)Is he even relevant any more?
He was never much of a "progressive" to start with.
Definitely white, though. Regardless of the saxophone thing.
curiously,
Bright
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)Big one white progresssives can work on that: agitate to restore VRA, and give to legal orgs that fight against racist voting restrictions.
It's one of those issues that doesn't read as "economic reform" but would do more to bring about left-wing economics in practice.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Which is
1: A majority minority state
2: A state where minorities have actual voting power
3: A state that was a Lean Red state as recently as 1992 (in fact, up until Bill won it, the last Dem to win it was LBJ)
Why is this relevant? Because without the VRA, the same process is less likely to happen in Texas, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida among other places.
Gothmog
(154,180 posts)The Democratic Party cannot give up on defending minority rights and still be the Democratic Party https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/15/the-democratic-party-isnt-going-to-back-down-from-defending-minority-rights/?utm_term=.e45d12a0a3a3
Trump campaigned on a platform that contained explicit vows of naked persecution of minorities. The Democratic Party has to organize itself to no small degree around resisting the implementation of those promises, should Trump make good on them — something that’s particularly urgent in an environment of resurgent reactionary sentiment and white backlash, which appear to be underway in the Era of Trump....
What this all means is that Democrats may find themselves in a position where they have to aggressively defend minority rights against an intensified threat to them. And that may require Dems to proceed from there to solving the problem of how to defend those rights while simultaneously broadening the party’s economic appeal to working class and middle class whites. None of this even gets into the additional point that many of the challenges facing minorities are also economic ones, which makes the whole debate over whether to embrace an economic message or a micro-targeted cultural one a bit of a false choice to begin with.
Now, obviously, individual candidates in the coming 2018 gubernatorial, Senate, and House contests will do their own thing, finding their own answers to these political challenges that they deem appropriate to the electorates they’re appealing to. But for the Democratic Party as a whole, if Trump does what he said he would do, adopting an uncompromising defense of minority rights will be a given.
We as a party cannot give up on this issue
mcar
(43,449 posts)Thanks.
Political_Junkie
(1,998 posts)Great thread! In reading the replies I finally understand why some here have been so angry at Sanders. I get it and I think you're right. As long as they can use racism as a wedge we will never have economic justice.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)betsuni
(27,255 posts)
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)We're going to go into broke ass regions of the country that are in many cases 90-95% white and suffering under terrible levels of unemployment and poverty and tell them that all their problems come from racism?
Here of all places we should ALL be able to agree that racism is one of the most pernicious and harmful issues scarring the soul of America, that crushes opportunity, destroys futures and warps the very basic fabric of society. As a party we need to fight against it tooth and nail everywhere it raises its vile, ugly head.
But if we want to win elections, our platform cannot be one where racism is the one big topic. Not today in an America where poor people are so downtrodden and abandoned by the political process that they were willing to vote for Donald fucking Trump as President of the United States of America.
Racial justice and equality should ALWAYS be one of our core pillars, but never ever forget that all politics is local. For a vast number of Americans the problems of race are not on their daily radar despite how much they should be. Their problems are economic first and foremost, and unless we have a cast iron economic plan to help the worst off then they will not vote for us, simple as that.
This party needs a reality check, unless we win we achieve nothing. Which is better? To run chiefly on racial equality and justice and lose, allowing the GOP scum to do even more terrible damage to racial equality and justice or to run heavily on the economy and then once in power fight tooth and nail to improve those racial problems with every tool at our disposal?
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)unless we have a cast iron economic plan to help the worst off then they will not vote for us, simple as that.
So why do they vote for Republicans? You would think they'd stay home, or at least give the Democrats a try. Instead they vote en masse for policies that will fuck them over. Economic populism only sells if "those people" won't get it, because the view of who deserves jobs, who deserves economic security, is informed by racism on a deep level. And if you don't attack that, you either have to leave out minorities, or have economic changes either not get passed, or unravel once racist whites realize that minorities are getting the benefits.
The cognitive dissonance is such that conservative Trump voters literally think the ACA is a SEPERATE law from "Obamacare", probably because they've internally segregated the two "Obamacare is a handout to THOSE PEOPLE, the ACA is another plan for respectable people"
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The self-nominated arbiters of who's deserving and who isn't are the same ones who preach color-blindness while determining that persons of color fall into the latter category. The 'soft' bigots, that is. The overt ones won't bother with coded language. With the latter becoming fewer in number (partly due to overt bigotry being less socially acceptable, at least pre-Trump) and so many failing to recognize the former, people have gotten the impression that racists are few and far between (we've seen those claims made in this thread and others). Meanwhile, 80% of Trump supporters are Birthers. The disconnect is stunning.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Just because their economic policy is utter nonsense and garbage doesn't mean people don't believe it, when they're not offered a more cleaarly compelling choice. The GOP are liars and we can show them up as liars, but we have to aim in the right direction.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)"immigration and terrorism" is to a huge extent a proxy for "the darkies are taking over".
Try again.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Trump won the likes of Michigan because of poor people feeling like they had been economically deserted by us, and writing them off as racists just helps to ensure that we'll lose next time as well with that kind of attitude.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Clinton won among those who said 'the economy' is their top priority. She won every income bracket below $48,000. Clinton won among the working class overall. If a segment of white working class people have different priorities than the working class as a whole, why might that be?
The economic conditions that you and me and others rightly decry are enabled by racism. Strategically diminishing racism is key to changing the economic structure of society. It's the key to sustainable progress. Otherwise, we'll just keep swinging back and forth on the pendulum of power.
And writing people off is not the point of the OP. Read this: https://thinkprogress.org/rev-barber-moral-change-1ad2776df7c#.3qqpaawy3
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)During the short interview, Siegel said "Obamacare" 7 times and King said it 6 times. Neither referred to the piece of legislation by its proper name.
I have to say it really bugged me and reminded me of your post.
no_hypocrisy
(48,687 posts)Not Social Security.
White Privilege is not going to be discussed or debated by either party.
azmom
(5,208 posts)the banks.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)and as FJT has eloquently stated, the economic conditions that we rightly decry (income and wealth inequality, corporate control, monopolization, big banks, etc.) are enabled (i.e., allowed to exist, continue and worsen) by other factors, most notably racism (as well as some other forms of bigotry). The very concept of whiteness was essentially invented for this purpose.
Nothing threatens the ruling class more than a multiracial alliance, so the ruling class does whatever it can to prevent such an alliance.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)For instance, even here at DU we have people denying the role racism plays in Republican success. While 80% of Trump's supporters are Birthers, we have people claiming only a tiny fraction of Trump's supporters are racists. While Clinton won among the working class overall (and among those for whom 'the economy' is their top concern), we have people claiming Trump won because of white working class economic anxiety. The disconnect is stunning, to put it mildly.
As one author put it:
The fact that we’re talking about the white working class, instead of just the working class, is a pretty big clue.
Somehow, though, that "pretty big clue" evades a lot of folks.
Absent racism, there's no viable Republican Party.
certainot
(9,090 posts)we have to stop analyzing in a talk radio vacuum - we're studying fish without water, blaming symptoms instead of the cause.
the fundamental question should be: how can people like bush, paling and trump even get close to the white house?
the only major medium with NO political counter is the talk radio psyops - 1200 coordinated think tanks scripted stations that took atwater national and have been completely ignored
and it's the one thing people can do the most about because many of the loudest of those stations 257 limbaugh stations depend heavily on the students at 88 major universities to not question the absurdity of broadcasting sports on them
When the Gulf Stream stops and Europe freezes will 88 universities stop supporting GW denial?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Well stated.
It isn't that racism doesn't exist and isn't being used as a tool. That's true, but racism is being exacerbated, reinforced and nurtured by the media--most overtly by radio-- so that it continues to be that effective tool.
Thanks for pointing out that liberal minded people(and we tend to have the youth on our side there) need to stop helping to fund those messages through those colleges. First people need to make this connection, but that sounds like a brilliant step in the right direction.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Talk radio is how the right-wing memes get ingrained into people's brains. It takes a lot of propaganda to keep the racist power structure going, it always has.
It's weird because there's a LOT of progressive energy on college campuses but NONE of it goes into divesting them from the right wing propaganda machine. Direct that energy at ensuring that college sports don't get broadcasted on those stations.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And that's precisely what the dog whistle "white working class" narrative is all about. It's disheartening that Dems prop up that narrative.
azmom
(5,208 posts)For blacks and other minority groups, that means tying our own very real struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face. Not only the refugee or the immigrant or the rural poor or the transgender American, but also the middle-aged white guy who from the outside may seem like he’s got all the advantages, but has seen his world upended by economic, and cultural, and technological change.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)"that the psychological wage is better than the material wage," as FJT put it in the OP. Overall, the working class supported Clinton. A segment of white working class people supported Trump. Ask yourself why that segment has different priorities than the working class as a whole. Ask yourself why no Democratic candidate for POTUS has won the white vote since LBJ. And, no, it's not because Democrats are too focused on "identity politics." Nobody does (white) "identity politics" more than the GOP.
From another thread on right wing radio: "Throughout 2014, the three (Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, and Sam Nunberg) fed Trump strategy memos and political intelligence. “I listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, and he (Trump) was getting reports from me,” Nunberg recalled. What those reports said was that the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core."
They weren't frothing over trade agreements and jobs.
The economic conditions so many decry are enabled by racism. People oppose helpful policies because the dreaded "other" is benefiting. We have to address that, and Reverend Barber of North Carolina is probably on the right track.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)What we know is that Clinton won among those for whom 'the economy' is a top concern. We also know that 80% of Trump's supporters are Birthers, and Birtherism is obviously rooted in racism.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Willie Pep
(841 posts)It is often not easy to understand why your economic situation is so bad. Most people are not wonks and don't follow politics religiously so when they see articles from right-wing sources saying that all of your problems come from black welfare queens or Mexicans it fits with racist narratives that people are often raised with. But it is also true that these views are not just held by struggling working-class whites but even by affluent whites who also hold racist beliefs. These are the people that we probably will never win because they oppose liberalism across the board.
But I do think we can win struggling working-class whites with a stronger left-wing economic message. Even people who hold racist views don't always vote primarily on those views. West Virginia was a Democratic stronghold for decades because the strength of unions in the state created a stronger class consciousness among West Virginians. I guarantee that some of those West Virginia Democrats also held less-than-liberal views on race and other issues but because of the culture of the state at the time class came first. As unions have weakened that class consciousness has eroded and people are more susceptible to racist narratives. This is why Southern politicians have always been so anti-union; they knew unions would create organizations where black and white workers would work together for mutual benefit and that this would make Southern workers more class conscious. So Southern politicians passed Right-to-Work laws and promoted tribalism based on racial and religious issues.
I guess my ultimate point is that we have to fight racism and economic inequality at the same time but we don't need to turn everyone into a saint to win elections. I sometimes get the sense that some Democrats believe that we can only tackle economic issues once everyone in the country drops all illiberal beliefs. I don't think that is necessary. We will never win over the hardcore racists but we can win over many people with a much stronger kitchen table message. At the end of the day racism takes a backseat to feeding your family and keeping a roof over your head.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)See articles from post #201.
Willie Pep
(841 posts)I don't agree with the use of racism as this singular answer to why we are losing. It assumes that we have to change the inner core of people to make them vote for us which is going to be almost impossible. We can certainly improve things through education and messaging but I don't think we need to make everyone perfectly liberal before we can win.
I also think there is a "chicken or the egg" problem. Do unions succeed because workers are less racist to begin with or do workers become less racist after experiences with unions? I think a strong argument can be made for the latter.
Here is a good article that discusses the issue: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/white-working-class-new-deal-racism-reagan-democrats/
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The capitalist class economically destroyed Detroit, just as it let Black people drown and starve in New Orleans.
Chrysler got rid of 35,000 workers in Motown. From 1979 to 1982, Chrysler’s entire workforce went from 70 percent African-American to 30 percent.
Capitalism closed the factories and poured in drugs and guns. The 2.3 million prisoners in the U.S. are workers, too.
The racist character of new capitalist investment can be seen in Wisconsin.
Milwaukee County has large Black and Latino/a communities. Some 55,000 manufacturing jobs were destroyed there between 1977 and 1992, before the North American Free Trade Agreement was implemented. But the rest of the state, which with few exceptions is overwhelmingly white, gained 66,000 of these factory jobs.
The attacks on Black workers were a defeat for the entire multinational working class. The United Auto Worker contracts that Black workers helped win through strikes became a standard for workers coast-to-coast.
Even workers in nonunion offices and other workplaces were to receive dental insurance and other benefits that came to be expected as part of the wage package.
The biggest reason for declining union membership was thousands of closed factories, many of which had large numbers of African-American workers.
The number of strikes involving more than a thousand workers fell from 424 in 1974 to a mere five in 2009. That’s a drop of 99 percent.
Nobody's talking about making people "perfectly liberal."
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Only after these rebellions did the colonial ruling elite implement the racist and caste-hardening Slave Codes, codifying American racism by prohibiting whites to be employed by Blacks, criminalizing the touching of whites by Blacks, establishing separate judicial courts and more. In the face of labor solidarity, early wealthy Americans laid the foundation for centuries of institutionalized racism to divide and conquer discontented American laborers. Multi-colored labor solidarity was to be destroyed at all costs.
As the colonial planters clearly recognized, racism shifts the discontent of white workers from their exploiters to their Black coworkers. In hyper-oppressing one section of workers, wealthy elites squeeze even greater profits from Black and brown workers while undercutting the potential unity and power of all workers.
History is full of examples of racism’s paralyzing effect on collective worker action in American labor. Railway owners undermined the famous Pullman Strike of 1894 by hiring scores of African-American workers. Despite Eugene Debs’ (then head of the American Railway Union) pleas, the ARU previously barred African-American members at its founding in 1893. The union paid the price for their racism: the strike collapsed under the weight of the excluded scabs. Seattle’s General Strike of 1919 similarly failed when employers brought in non-white strikebreakers by the thousands; a large majority were African-American and Chinese, both generally excluded by Seattle’s unions.
W.E.B. DuBois explained the failure of the Radical Reconstruction of the post-Civil War era—and its potentially historic alliance of Black and white Southern workers to democratize the South—in precisely the same vein:
The race element was emphasized in order that property-holders could get the support of the majority of white laborers and make it more possible to exploit Negro labor. But the race philosophy came as a new and terrible thing to make labor unity or labor class-consciousness impossible. So long as the Southern white laborers could be induced to prefer poverty to equality with the Negro, just so long was a labor movement in the South made impossible.
The American’s labor movement’s most important campaign of the 20th century, Operation Dixie in 1946, also failed spectacularly due to racism. Despite huge financial investment from the CIO to organize the American South, labor’s Achilles heel, the effort collapsed as Southern employers successfully discouraged white workers by stoking their racism in equating unionism with racial equality. Moreover, racist leadership (under pressure from racist membership) within the CIO shied away from targeting the South’s most organizable workers, African-Americans. The effort thus failed to make inroads into the South, and unions suffer the debilitating consequences of an unorganized South to this day.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,021 posts)Bookmarking for more careful reading later.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Nothing progressive about the people that continue to stay immune to change, because their paycheck depends on it.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)In no way do I wish to turn this discussion into a focus on Bernie Sanders, and I'm hesitant to even bring this up, but I think the following quote from a Salon article is instructive:
I think that's backward and may result from Bernie living in the whitest state in the US. I think those deeply entrenched beliefs and attitudes prevent economic solidarity. Those beliefs and attitudes are largely what enable the economic conditions we decry. Strategically diminishing racism is key to sustainable progress. As the Salon article points out, polls suggest a majority of Americans agree with Bernie's position on various economic issues, but it's that 'psychological wage' (feeling superior to and more deserving than 'The Other') that stands in the way. Otherwise we wouldn't see tens of millions of people repeatedly voting against their 'class' interests.
And, as I've posted previously in this thread, anti-racism is key to the success of the labor union movement.