Is there just a lack of ability to see beyond self?

[Guest]

9 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

Then, my icing on the cake this AM, was a close friend, someone I love and respect, put up a post that said, "Why does this have to be about race? Why can't it be about a bad cop who killed a MAN?"  BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT RACE - ALL ABOUT RACE!  And I really did let loose - it's about race because it's about RACE.  This NEVER would have happened to me - never, ever, freaking ever.   To which one of her other friends said, "Because everything must be blamed on the white man."  (Roll eyes - Please whine elsewhere about your hardship. To whom much is given, much is expected.)

I hear ya. I had a similar conversation with someone who is not getting it. They are misunderstanding the protests as being about *this incident*. 

[Corraleno]

56 minutes ago, StellaM said:

working class voices in general are not powerful.And the tolol used to amplify working class voice - unions? Just read a comment here that said unions should be weakened. 

If you're referring to my comment that was specifically about police unions, that has nothing to do with opposition to labor unions in general (which I wholeheartedly support). Police unions in the US are incredibly powerful, and they invariably take the side of racist and abusive officers. The head of the Minneapolis police union, Bob Kroll, has vocally supported the actions of Derek Chauvin, and claims that all four officers acted entirely appropriately. In many cites, the head of the union is more powerful than the police chief, because the union limits the actions a chief is allowed to take against abusive officers. They make it extremely difficult to get rid of bad cops, and even in the rare occasion that cops are fired, union contracts generally require some kind of arbitration that results in reinstatement in a large number of cases. Their contracts include restrictions on the timing, extent, and content when police are questioned about abusive behavior, limits on how and when the public can file complaints, and rules on when disciplinary reports be expunged (sometimes in as little as two years). They are the reason so few prosecutors (who are generally elected in the US) bring charges against police — in the rare cases when that does happen, the union will often make sure that prosecutor is replaced in the next election. It's no coincidence that when the local prosecutor filed charges against Chauvin he chose a charge knew wouldn't hold up in court and declined to even charge the other officers. 

[Soror]

nt

Edited June 6, 2020 by soror

[Matryoshka]

10 minutes ago, StellaM said:

So, for all the idiots out here, what is the (globally understood) meaning of 'white moderate'?

Americans have no idea what 'moderate' is outside the US, nor that Elizabeth Warren is considered to the right of center on a worldwide politics measure, and even Bernie Sanders barely squeaks over the midline.  (with all that's been going on of late, I think Trump's dot might need to be adjusted a bit upwards...).  Here 'moderate' seems to be understood to be somewhere about halfway between all the way far right and what would be moderate elsewhere (see Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg below.)

Edited June 6, 2020 by Matryoshka

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Given I'm not a mind-reader, I can only go on your words, which were 'unions need to be weakened.'

It was up to you to clarify and correct that if you spoke in error.

It's not hard to instead say 'police unions need root and branch reform'.

LEO's are workers and like all workers, deserve (non-corrupt, non-racist) trade unions to amplify their voice.

 

"Police unions are one of THE biggest deterrents to police reform in this country. Even on the rare occasion that abusive cops are fired, many, if not most, get their jobs back through the union. And if any prosecutor dares to file criminal charges, the union will make sure that prosecutor is defeated in the next election and replaced by someone "friendlier." Limiting the power of unions is really Step 1 in police reform.'

Since the entire post is clearly about police unions, I don't know why anyone would assume that I think weakening the unions of grocery store workers or autoworkers would have any impact, let alone be "Step 1 in police reform." 🤷‍♀️ 

[Garga]

9 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

Maybe I should have reframed....

As a white woman, I feel BETRAYED and ANGRY by people who put forth some type of mindset that they love justice and equality and intellectual thought and then tout a party line because it's easier and less painful than admitting complacency.

My sil, whom I like, but doesn't put on any pretense of deep thought, in response to blackout Tuesday, posted a blue square that said, "Blue Lives Matter," and I thought, "This is not about that.  Nothing about the recognition of what the black community deals with is about YOU right now.  It's about supporting people who are in PAIN and ANGRY."   not. about. you.  I get the tendency to want to make it about you - her husband is a prison guard, but now is not about that.

Then, my icing on the cake this AM, was a close friend, someone I love and respect, put up a post that said, "Why does this have to be about race? Why can't it be about a bad cop who killed a MAN?"  BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT RACE - ALL ABOUT RACE!  And I really did let loose - it's about race because it's about RACE.  This NEVER would have happened to me - never, ever, freaking ever.   To which one of her other friends said, "Because everything must be blamed on the white man."  (Roll eyes - Please whine elsewhere about your hardship. To whom much is given, much is expected.)

And I feel betrayed and angry and FB allows for insight into what people really stand for and believe far beyond what we get from 100 coffee dates.  And I hate that I don't "trust" people I considered close friends because I didn't recognize that they were this damn short sighted and willing to tow the line.  I vote Republican, almost a straight ticket, with the exception of our current scenario.  I *am* the typical white, 40s, conservative voter (Hello, Karen) and even I, in my stereotypical, Midwest, Christian background, can recognize the only truth that matters - if he were a white female, he'd be alive today. I know precious few stories.  You know why? When I went to school? No kids with brown skin - private Catholic school with 58 kids in my class.  My family? Brown skin because they tan easily - I have two cousins (Guatamala and bi-racial) who are adopted and had a "white" upbringing.  On my FB page? I think I am friends with two black women -one of whom I am not close to and one of whom is a trusted friend that I've known for 18 years, but only online.  Two.  I should be the dead last person to recognize a damn thing about the black community and I suspect what I "know" is precious little.  But, we have some sort of idea that our singular experiences represent whole truths.  This is not so.  There are truths so far beyond your personal experience and the idea that the majority of humans can't comprehend, even the tiniest bit, or at the VERY LEAST, just SHUT UP AND LISTEN, is beyond me.

 

 

7 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

This. You've put words to the pain I've been feeling too. It's come up repeatedly for me in the last few years on a variety of topics (immigration, women, etc.) where I feel like people have shown me their true hearts. And they aren't loving their neighbor as they should as professing Christians...extended family, friends, etc.  I feel like I wake up a lot of days and don't know what has happened.  (I have always been pretty moderate, and the world has moved around me politically also. I'm now seen as being left, but when I look back in my journals, I'm pretty much the same me that I was 25-30 years ago and voting republican in the Midwest.) I'm having a lot of painful and awkward conversations where I am standing alone. I speak of love, empathy, and of the scriptures and I get shut down. Sometimes I am sad. Some days I am angry. Some days I feel betrayed. Some days I am scared.  I don't think this is white woman guilt wallowing.  I think this is confronting systemic injustices and realizing your friends and family don't want to leave their comfortable places and are willing to tell themselves and others lies about what is happening  so that they feel mentally ok about others suffering.

 

Yes! To both of these!  

I have a group of friends that I realized I just don’t much like anymore. 

I’m in the process of honing friendships with a different sort of people and I’m letting the friendships with the older group gently fade away.

Feeling the chasm grow between me and my old friends, or between me and church leaders I used to look up to, has been wrenching.

[katilac]

On 6/4/2020 at 8:14 AM, BlsdMama said:

Why must we CONSTANTLY take a side, slap on a label, tout a party line, and steadfastly refuse to recognize good and evil exists in all colors and occupations? 

I know you're not trying to say that it's okay that evil exists in the police force, but this is still a good segue to Chris Rock's bit on why some occupations can't have 'a few bad apples':

 

[katilac]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:00 PM, DoraBora said:

I do understand that he is employing metaphor.  It's still directed at the people of one race, and it's still intended to diminish those people, as if there's no hope for them.  (White people just don't get it... they can't help it...  they have a sickness in their brains... etc.) 

Why is saying white people have a virus saying that there's no hope? Viruses can be treated. Vaccines can be developed for viruses. 

On 6/4/2020 at 1:57 PM, Corraleno said:

Here is the context of the comment. Of course every conservative news outlet has headlined this as "Van Jones says all white people are racists!" I thought the metaphor of a virus "that can be activated at any second" in reponse to perceived threat, no matter how unwarranted, was accurate, and a really insightful way of framing issues like the woman who called police on a black man who merely asked her to leash her dog. That woman voted for Clinton and Obama and certainly would not have considered herself a racist, but the minute her comfort and convenience were in any way imposed upon by a black man, she played the race card.

His whole point was that white people who would never consider themselves racist still respond in culturally-conditioned racist ways. But instead of thinking about what he actually said, and why he said it, the immediate response from too many white people is OMG, how insulting, "not all white people" are racists!
 

Yes! And his actual comments read very differently than people's summary of his comments, so I hope everyone who's concerned about what he said actually reads what he said in its entirety. It's pretty short. 

7 hours ago, WendyLady said:

 I didn't know if I should like the post, because I did like reading it and was enlightened by reading it. Or if I should say "sad" because it really is sad to me that he (and his mother) live in this fear every day.  Or if I should say "angry" because I am angry that this is where we are today - I am angry and I need to do something.

I can give you a very quick and easy answer to this: if  you think the post merits some attention, respond in some way. Any reaction will boost the post, and I promise you that the poster is not sussing out every reaction for appropriateness; they are just glad when people respond. Or, just share it. 

6 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Because you said 'unions need to be weakened.'

LEO's are workers. Workers have rights, one of which is  representation by a union.

A racist, corrupt union needs reform. 

Unionism as a concept does not need to be weakened, including for LEO's.

Reform, radical reform, root and branch reform....all have different meaning to 'weaken'.

This isn't a hard point to understand.

I think we can give people a little grace for not using the exact best word; I found it easy to get the gist of her post. 

I will say that I'm not 100% positive that police unions in America shouldn't be weakened as well as reformed. It's hard to convey how much power they have if that's not the reality where you live. Unions are meant to give workers power in negotiations, but not unlimited power. 

[Matryoshka]

4 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

You are so much younger than me. I was raised in a racist home and realized early on that I would be the odd one in my family. The biggest touchstone for me was  the dragging-death of James Byrd in Jasper, Tx in the late 1990’s. 

The first big one I remember was Charles Stuart who killed his pregnant wife and blamed it on an imaginary 'black man'.  That was 1989 - I was already two years out of college...

Edited June 6, 2020 by Matryoshka

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

You are so much younger than me. I was raised in a racist home and realized early on that I would be the odd one in my family. The biggest touchstone for me was  the dragging-death of James Byrd in Jasper, Tx in the late 1990’s. 

 

Oh, I remember that too but I did not process it as an immediate threat. I somehow managed to put it in the category of history and not a current event. It was so brutal, and so reminiscent of those old Jet magazine photos, that I didn't truly see it as a contemporary happening. It didn't register that way. Whereas the idea of the police being complicit in rounding up massive numbers of black men on the mere suspicion of involvement made me fear for my brother in unimaginable ways. The killers of Mr. Byrd were convicted whereas there was no apology or relief for those rounded up and booked.

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Limit power then. 

Weaken is not the right word.

I give grace where it's given to me. 

That's pretty funny, since those were my exact, actual words:  "limiting the power."  I never used the word "weaken."

Police unions in the US have actual powers that they should not have — power to override police chiefs and reinstate bad cops, power to prevent citizen oversight committees from exercising oversight, powers to hide or expunge records of police misconduct, power to elect prosecutors who will not charge cops and to get rid of those who do. Those actual powers need to be seriously limited. They can retain the power to negotiate contracts on wages, benefits, overtime, etc. — like every other union. They should not have the power to prevent bad cops from ever being accountable for their actions. It is literally impossible to reform policing in this country without limiting the unreasonable powers that police unions currently hold.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

 

LEO's are workers and like all workers, deserve (non-corrupt, non-racist) trade unions to amplify their voice.

I really do think this is an issue of what police "unions" actually are. they are not normal trade unions. Heck, in many areas you can donate to them and get a sticker to put on your car, with the idea that the cops are less likely to write you a ticket. They are CONSTANTLY fundraising. Etc etc. 

40 minutes ago, StellaM said:

So authoriatian right wingers?

White people who vote for right wing candidates, and say they disavow racism but uphold racist institutions and practices?

That's so far from what the rest of the world hears when you say 'moderate'.

I'd suggest that Americans who don't want to assume cultural hegemony adjust their language, rather than expect the rest of the world to adjust theirs.

 

 

 

Ok, but 1. we don't necessarily know how others use the word. 2. it was a quote, so not something she can change

23 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Limit power then. 

Weaken is not the right word.

 

I'm not sure how limiting power isn't the exact same thing as weaken? 

Here, private groups like police "unions" and teachers' unions often have more power than the governing agency that is supposed to be in authority. Hence it being nearly impossible to fire bad teachers. (in my area it takes TWO YEARS to fire a teacher) They become private, pseudo-government groups in effect. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Corraleno]

14 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Heck, in many areas you can donate to them and get a sticker to put on your car, with the idea that the cops are less likely to write you a ticket.

Yup — everyone in my neighborhood growing up had a PBA sticker on the rear window of their car. It was like a magical cloaking device that prevented police from "noticing" that you were speeding or illegally parked or whatever.

[katilac]

19 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Do LEO's deserve union representation, yes or no?

My answer is yes, and if the union is too corrupt and too racist to do that, you rebuild the union. 

You don't start in on right wing talking points about 'powerful teachers' unions'.

It's possible to accept and believe that police unions are run by corrupted white racist thugs, AND uphold the principles of unionism.

If Americans don't know that their politics  and political terminology is WAY out of step with the rest of the world, then that's on them.

It's not a yes or no question. 

Yes, LEO's should be able to have union representation. No, that union should not have near unlimited power. 

How would you propose rebuilding a powerful union that doesn't want to be rebuilt? You can call it what you want, but the only way you rebuild a corrupt and powerful union it to take away some of their power first. 

And every country has their own vocabulary for certain things 🤷‍♂️

[Corraleno]

11 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Do LEO's deserve union representation, yes or no?

My answer is yes, and if the union is too corrupt and too racist to do that, you rebuild the union. 

You don't start in on right wing talking points about 'powerful teachers' unions'.

It's possible to accept and believe that police unions are run by corrupted white racist thugs, AND uphold the principles of unionism.

This is really nuts. NO ONE has said or even implied that police don't "deserve union representation."  You have NO CLUE what the issue is with police unions in the US, yet you keep "correcting" people who do, and insisting that just getting rid of "corrupt racist thugs" solves the problem. The problem isn't that bad people are corrupting the process, the problem is that the process is itself corrupt. The actual policies and procedures that police unions use to protect violent cops are totally legal and within their power. Changing the people does not eliminate those powers. It's absurd to think that if you just hire nice, nonracist people to run the unions (as if that were even possible), then they could be trusted not to actually use the powers they legally have. Do you think they would just, out of the goodness of their hearts, turn over disciplinary records to citizen oversight committees even though they don't have to? Wholeheartedly support the firing of all racist and violent cops even though they have the power to prevent it? Never threaten prosecutors who bring charges against bad cops? 

The power of police unions should be limited to the normal powers that all labor unions have, like negotiating pay, benefits, sick leave, pensions, etc. 

[ktgrok]

29 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Do LEO's deserve union representation, yes or no?

My answer is yes, and if the union is too corrupt and too racist to do that, you rebuild the union. 

You don't start in on right wing talking points about 'powerful teachers' unions'.

It's possible to accept and believe that police unions are run by corrupted white racist thugs, AND uphold the principles of unionism.

If Americans don't know that their politics  and political terminology is WAY out of step with the rest of the world, then that's on them.

Wow...that is definitely the first time I've ever been accused of using right wing talking points! You sure do seem to know exactly how best to work things over here, don't you? I mean, we are saying these "unions" which are NOT traditional unions in any sense, need to have less power. Because they currently have WAY too much, to the point of subverting democracy. 

You, with zero experience with this, feel the need to lecture us on if we are correct to say that. 

I assure you, we are, and perhaps you need to do some reading on the issue. 

No one has said there shouldn't be unions, in the normal sense of the word. No one. 

Now, I'll go back to laughing at me being right wing anything. (for the record, the teachers themselves have said this, and I have a family member who is a school administrator. I know what I'm talking about. Education is run by for profit companies and the teacher's "union", not the voters, or even the teachers themselves. But hey, if acknowledging that fact makes me right wing....whatever)

[Joker]

Donating half our paycheck does absolutely nothing to actually help. We are donating money but there needs to be actual change and that change starts with police unions in my opinion. This is so absolutely frustrating!

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I can assure in, in most nations, 'moderate' doesn't mean right wing.

Well, yes, that's what I said - that's one of the words we use in a way different to much of the world. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, StellaM said:

Teacher union bashing is a right wing talking point in all Anglophone countries.

 

So....if the teacher's union actually DOES have too much power, and if it really DOES take 2 years to fire a teacher, I can't say that, because it is a right wing talking point? I have to what, lie? Pretend it isn't true? Put up with crappy educators in my area because of it, because it would be disloyal to my leftist roots to actually say the thing?

Did it occur to you for one moment that the teachers unions here might just be different than where you are? Or does it not matter, and anything that slaps the word "union" on itself is a sacred cow?

I'm a freaking socialist, but being leftist isn't a cult. I'm not required to lie about what is happening right in front of me to be loyal to the cause. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, StellaM said:

If 99% see moderate and think modertate, and 1% of the world sees moderate and thinks right wing authoritarian, I wonder who should change their usage?

You are right. MLK should stop using it right now. You want to tell him, or should I?

Edited June 6, 2020 by Ktgrok

[katilac]

20 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

This is really nuts. NO ONE has said or even implied that police don't "deserve union representation."  You have NO CLUE what the issue is with police unions in the US, yet you keep "correcting" people who do, and insisting that just getting rid of "corrupt racist thugs" solves the problem. The problem isn't that bad people are corrupting the process, the problem is that the process is itself corrupt. The actual policies and procedures that police unions use to protect violent cops are totally legal and within their power. Changing the people does not eliminate those powers. It's absurd to think that if you just hire nice, nonracist people to run the unions (as if that were even possible), then they could be trusted not to actually use the powers they legally have. Do you think they would just, out of the goodness of their hearts, turn over disciplinary records to citizen oversight committees even though they don't have to? Wholeheartedly support the firing of all racist and violent cops even though they have the power to prevent it? Never threaten prosecutors who bring charges against bad cops? 

The power of police unions should be limited to the normal powers that all labor unions have, like negotiating pay, benefits, sick leave, pensions, etc. 

Bolding by me: this, 100%, but I'm leaving the rest of your post as well because it's all worth reading again. 

18 minutes ago, StellaM said:

What's your non-union solution for amplifying the voices of workers, including LEO's?

I don't even understand what you think you're responding to anymore. She absolutely did not advocate for a non-union solution, where are you getting that from?? She specifically and directly says: "NO ONE has said or even implied that police don't "deserve union representation." and "The power of police unions should be limited to the normal powers that all labor unions have, like negotiating pay, benefits, sick leave, pensions, etc." I don't see how you read that, and the rest of her post, and come to the conclusion that she thinks the police shouldn't have a union. 

17 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Teacher union bashing is a right wing talking point in all Anglophone countries.

There are many issues with the teacher unions in America. Like Katie said, you can't just ignore those problems because of where you fall on the political spectrum. 

14 minutes ago, StellaM said:

If 99% see moderate and think modertate, and 1% of the world sees moderate and thinks right wing authoritarian, I wonder who should change their usage?

We'll get right on that. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by katilac

[katilac]

7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

If you had a history of working in trade unionism, or had family who had worked in trade unionism, you would understand that the trade union movement is global, not national. Trade unions work across national lines all the time - that's a core component of unionism. Teachers' union here discusses and works with teachers' unions in other nations frequently. Railway unions (which one side of my family was involved in for over a century) the same. 

Being socialist in the US is being a moderate anywhere else. 

Unfortunately, most moderates don't do material analysis, and have little understanding of the principles of unionism.

~

This is a conversation without an answer, just as police abolition is a conversation without an answer.

It sounds good. Burn it all down. Kneecap the unions. Fuck the cops. 

So you abolish any concept of a union for LEO's, and you abolish LEO's themselves...what comes next? Where's it all leading? And don't tell me it's to a better world, because a world without strong worker representation and some form of policing is not that. It's just some kind of Darwinian nightmare.

It's all a nightmare, and directing your animus at me  achieves precisely zero outcomes in social justice.

Want to join me in donating half your paycheck? I'm sure you make regular donations, as do I, but I figure we can do more. I'm donating next week as well. Possibly for the next month. I'll see how the groceries go.

Bolding by me.

Curbing the overreaching power of certain unions is not kneecapping them. 

I haven't seen anyone on this thread advocate for abolishing any union for anyone, certainly not Katie. 

You are the one being ugly - oh excuse me, that's a regional expression that you might not understand - you are the one directing your animus to multiple people on the thread. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by katilac

[Joker]

2 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I have to say, as a teacher, that drawing a comparison between police unions defending murdering cops, and teachers unions is bothering me.  Do I think that teacher's unions are perfect?  No, but I think that comparison is not a fair one.  

Hell no, it's not! I come from a long line of teachers and their union is nothing like the police union. This whole conversation is insane! Police unions allow cops to kill people. Why would anyone argue against curbing their control? 

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, StellaM said:

If you had a history of working in trade unionism, or had family who had worked in trade unionism, you would understand that the trade union movement is global, not national.

Teacher's unions and police unions here are not even the same from state to state, so no, I don't think you can say that what they are in your country across the freaking world is the same was what we are talking about here. 

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

MLK is not a saint. 

This is not a church.

If you want to reproduce linguistic hegemony while claiming to be intersectional, go right ahead.

No one is saying anyone is a saint. I was saying that I don't expect a dead man to change his wording based on your request. Cause he's dead. 

2 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I have to say, as a teacher, that drawing a comparison between police unions defending murdering cops, and teachers unions is bothering me.  Do I think that teacher's unions are perfect?  No, but I think that comparison is not a fair one.  

Sorry. I was just referring to them as another example of a union that has, in some areas of the country, gotten an inordinate amount of power that has the effect of circumventing the democratic process. This is not true in all areas of the country, and not true at all times. But it is an example. (In some cases that worked in my favor....my son's best teacher when he was in the public schools was going to retire in a year, and since it would take longer than that to fire her, she just totally ignored all the stupid required workbooks and taught the kids with real novels. Because they couldn't stop her. But often it works the other way around)

[ktgrok]

Multiple times people have clarified that they do not want to get rid of any unions, including police unions. And yet you respond by saying we are wanting to do exactly that? Are you okay tonight, because this really isn't even making sense anymore. 

[Terabith]

Virginia made teacher’s unions illegal.  I think police are only ones allowed to have them. 

[Liz CA]

On 6/4/2020 at 8:41 PM, Paige said:

Some cities have mental health mobile crisis units. These are people that can be called 24/7 for any mental health emergency or escalation instead of the police. Some cities fund these and make it a free service for all of their citizens. Others don't have the funds and you have to pay out of pocket or hope insurance covers it. Other cities don't have it at all. There is no police involvement with these cases and I have no stats, but I would bet whatever anyone wanted that outcomes are better for the people involved.

So these services can and would exist if more cities made having them a priority as other cities have. 

 

In areas where there is no specific funding yet for more specialized units, some officers are especially trained to deal with incidents like these and transport to res tx centers. This came (in part at least) from an incident with a police officer and a person who had walked out of a psych facility. The officer had no clue what he was dealing with (it would be difficult if you had no prior training for anyone) but at least it illustrated the need for special training. A step in the right direction.

[Carrie12345]

 

9 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

Americans have no idea what 'moderate' is outside the US, nor that Elizabeth Warren is considered to the right of center on a worldwide politics measure, and even Bernie Sanders barely squeaks over the midline.  (with all that's been going on of late, I think Trump's dot might need to be adjusted a bit upwards...).  Here 'moderate' seems to be understood to be somewhere about halfway between all the way far right and what would be moderate elsewhere (see Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg below.)

Keep in mind  that the term “moderate” was used in the context of 1963.

 

By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." 

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." 

...

"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular. 

So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice." 

Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Letter From The Birmingham Jail"
April 16, 1963

[Ausmumof3]

I have had several pretty positive moments today with various social media people.  One person who I wouldn’t have expected to posted a positive black lives matter meme.  Someone else posted the story of Miriam and Aaron criticising Moses for marrying a Cushite woman and God showing them that she was his chosen wife and used it as a racism parallel.  Someone else posted the “neither Jew nor Greek” quote.  None of this is outstanding I guess but some little corners of my world are pretty racist and seeing this stuff shared without any negative responses made me happy.  And the rally here seems to have gone off very smoothly.  Police say people were doing their best to socially distance although it was hard due to the numbers and quite a few were wearing masks in the pictures.

[Pam in CT]

re white over-weighting of The N Word as the sole admissible evidence of racism

4 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I keep re-visiting the virus comment in my mind because I think it spoke to something true, at least for me. I wasn't raised to be a racist but I was raised in a racist society. The 'virus' is definitely in my head. I don't think I would behave like Amy Cooper but if under extreme stress perhaps I would. IDK. 

My parents are white liberal southerners. The n word was not used in our home. But I certainly knew that word. I asked my midwestern raised husband what they called the game where you ring the doorbell and run away. In my Oklahoma childhood, that was called n-word knocking except we actually said the word. Where did I learn that word? Who knows? The kids in DH's neighborhood had a different name for that game. 

I was not explicitly taught to be a racist but I picked up all kinds of assumptions about race throughout my life. I have olive skin and tan very easily. I have a vivid memory from the 4th grade of a boy telling me that I was a "n-word" (except he used the real word) on the school playground. Even at age 9, I knew that was a shameful thing. Why do I remember that taunt when I've forgotten all of the other mean things said by little boys on the playground? 

It's because race in the USA, and especially in the south, is *deep*. ...

 

Thing is, Amy Cooper did not use The N Word, and she isn't from the south, and yet: racism.

If we white people limit the definition of racism down to individual acts by individual actors... the result is that racism is only ever a matter of Intent.  And if we then further define racism as the manifestation of evil in the human heart.. and who can see into the human heart to know intent...  the test to know if an episode * is racist becomes simple: Did the person use The N Word ? 

When we define racism down to a dot that tiny, whose only admissible evidence is a test that narrow, it yields a powerfully convenient result: No N word = no intent = no racism, Voila!  Problem vanished!

Which, obviously, sustains racism.

 

Trevor Noah did a sustained riff last week on the concept of society built on implicit "social contract."  On which black Americans cannot depend.  He honed in instructively on the aspect of the Amy Cooper episode that does not depend on any of the situational specifics.  Before she even dialed, before she used a single word to describe her perspective, accurately or shaded or bald-faced untruthfully -- before she even dialed and said a single word, she KNEW that once she did, she could DEPEND on LEO responding to her as a white woman and him as a black man.  She KNEW that.  She knew it, and he knew it, and she knew he knew it.  They both knew that before police knew a single particular about what had happened, there would be a BASELINE that protected her and threatened him.

So she wielded that knowledge as a weapon against him.

That is racism. Nice moderate Hillary supporter in polyglot melting pot New York. No N Word necessary.

 

Was there "intent"?  Who knows. Who can see inside the human heart.  I expect she probably now feels quite awful, not only because her life has been "ruined" but also, quite likely, she is over time slowly and painfully processing the mirror that has been so publicly thrust upon her. But here's the thing: even if she did not "Intend" To Be Racist, she fell back upon the protection of a de facto societal contract that exists for some but not for all.  That is sorted by race before LEO, or the public audience at large, know anything about the particulars. That is the larger point. It's actually not about her, it's about a society in which some folks are very vested and other folks know is lethally dangerous to their literal physical bodies (and much more).

 

 

ETA: 

 

 

 

*  because only individual episodes are even considered -- structural systems like redlining are already defined out of the frame

Edited June 6, 2020 by Pam in CT

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Terabith said:

Virginia made teacher’s unions illegal.  I think police are only ones allowed to have them. 

TN has them, but they have almost no power. Mostly it's a group buying plan for liability insurance, and they put on training for new teachers, conferences, etc. It's a lot more a professional society (or sorority) than trade union. I think most people think teacher's union and think of the reports out of NYC-and I'm not sure any other state has teacher's unions with that much, or really any, power. 

[katilac]

 

7 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom;  

Aaaaand, nearly 60 years later . . . 

[Pam in CT]

re I share your goals, but your tactics are "not constructive"

4 hours ago, katilac said:

 

   11 hours ago,  Carrie12345 said: 

Quote

who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom;  

 

Aaaaand, nearly 60 years later . . . 

 

57 years later was Kaepernick. It literally is not possible to NAME a more non-violent tactic than silently taking a knee. Yet that form of protest provoked widespread fury and outrage That tactic was deemed provocative, insulting, not constructive.  Not by a few, by many, including many on this board; as well as from the sitting POTUS and the sitting Vice POTUS.

A march that disrupts traffic: not constructive.  (I recall a Mondo Thread on that subject on this board.)

A spotlight that projects annoying words onto private buildings: not constructive.

Athlete using his national platform to raise national awareness: not constructive, shut up and dribble.

Beyonce's Formation at Super Bowl, not constructive.

Van Jones last week: not constructive.

Wholly and entirely non-violent, all. Yet, strangely, every last one deemed not constructive.

 

It's almost like the only "acceptable" protest is one that is not seen, not heard, not disruptive or inconvenient in any way... to white people.  Keep it Over There, but do not intrude on my space, my roadway, my airwaves, my game.

Almost like the criteria for "acceptable" is: it does not enter our cozy white world. Which makes perfect sense, as the literal point is to disrupt that cozy white world.

There never has been a form of protest that in its time was deemed "constructive" by those in power. Certainly not MLK, or Gandhi, or Mandela.  Ex post, after the fact, in comparison with others?  Sometimes. But in its time? No. And there never will be.  

 

[catz]

For those who have Amazon prime, I highly recommend streaming “Just Mercy” and “Selma”.   Both are streaming free right now.