|
Taerkar posted:To add to this... It's also one of the reasons why those polls about liberal policies don't mean poo poo in a lot if cases. That support plummets when you tie minorities to them.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
ATP5G1 posted:This was pointed out in the quote in your post, but pursuit of white interests is identity politics. It's white identity politics. Whoops, Poe's Law is strong. There will be times when I will need to be taken to task and get the poo poo kicked out of me since I'm white and uninformed or misinformed but I'm on your side. Octatonic posted:That's what he was saying, using sarcasm, so we all agree. Socially dominant viewpoints have a nasty habit of considering themselves universal, which is the problem. Thanks. Yeah it's bad. quote:I got into a brief fight about this back after the election, and as I argued that catering to white/male identity harmed working class solidarity as a whole, the "get identity politics out of the activism" positioned shifted to "why can't we have both identity politics and class politics" by the end of it, and I kind of balked. I think it's clear where the priorities lie for a lot of these folks. Isn't class politics identity politics though? I heavily identify with my class as an uplifted poor rust belter. I feel class is an identity and I don't see why we should separate class politics from identity politics. In fact, that seems divisive as gently caress. I don't know if this line of argument will help you with these folks you're bashing your head against though. So much of ones class and socioeconomic status is bound up into race and gender it would foolish to separate them. Which is why I'm glad that I'm of the opinion that it is impossible to eschew race and gender from class because you know if there was a way for white men to shovel poverty wholly onto non-whites and leave them to be forgotten they'd loving do it. (And let's be honest here, they're trying real hard.) But the data shows that these things are interconnected. And I never understood why the so-called rationals could get away with the claim of rationalism when they just utterly ignore and dismiss data and facts. But I'm in tangent mode now so pardon me: Let's be real here, it's only because white people are and can be poor that white people even wanna do anything about poverty. They didn't give a poo poo about dying jobless towns when it was happening to non-whites, only when that poo poo trickled up to them did they start panicking. Then they Trumped us. And if they get their salvation (they won't) they'll be more than happy to leave you high and dry. gently caress the lot of them. loving fuckers. Even those elitist loving liberals, they're not really in this. They just wanna loving look good. I lived near Cleveland in the late 90s, back when the Indians were good, I know what fair weather friends look like. They're already doing a godawful job of not being racists and you bet your rear end as soon as this is over they're gonna stop putting on airs and start being overtly racist again. I hope I stay woke and don't join those fucks. Please raise hell at me if I do. blackguy32 posted:It's also one of the reasons why those polls about liberal policies don't mean poo poo in a lot if cases. That support plummets when you tie minorities to them. Which is absolute bullshit. Data shows we as a society do better when minorities are thriving! This kind of poo poo is just suicidal! Racism is a hell of a drug and this divide and conquer poo poo is infuriating. The worst thing is, I struggle with the sentiments Marcus H. Johnson is calling out and I just gotta tamp down that urge to defend myself and argue with him and just shut up and listen. Where's the fast lane to pulling my head out of my rear end? I wanna get off the white nationalism ride. Jenner fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
I'm not an American so forgive me for asking, but is the Democratic party actually doing anything for minority rights, or is it just taking their votes for granted and thinking they'll always have them because they're not the Republicans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:I'm not an American so forgive me for asking, but is the Democratic party actually doing anything for minority rights, or is it just taking their votes for granted and thinking they'll always have them because they're not the Republicans? Pretty much the latter IMHO. It's a really gross hostage situation minorities are in because the GOP literally wants to kill them but the Democrats rarely do poo poo for them. Liberals have fought for their rights and are more on their side then not but it's largely been lip service as far as I'm concerned (though the minorities here will know better.) To me, liberals are notorious for banding together with minorities to pursue a common cause then dumping them the moment it's fixed enough for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Pretty much the latter IMHO. It's a really gross hostage situation minorities are in because the GOP literally wants to kill them but the Democrats rarely do poo poo for them. Liberals have fought for their rights and are more on their side then not but it's largely been lip service as far as I'm concerned (though the minorities here will know better.) To me, liberals are notorious for banding together with minorities to pursue a common cause then dumping them the moment it's fixed enough for them. This is kinda veering dangerously into "black people need to get off the Democratic plantation" bullshit IMO. It assumes that we don't know our own minds or can't think for ourselves. No, the Democrats haven't been perfect, but they are the only ones that let us have a seat at the table. Even with the '94 crime bill (which no one cares about anymore) the Clinton administration worked with the Black Caucus to find out our specific concerns and try to draft legislation to address them. The bill as it was written was very popular at the time with our community and it was truly an effort on their part to address a serious problem. Its execution and changes by the GOP is royally hosed, but it would be a lie to say that the administration didn't try to help. Hillary Clinton went undercover in the state of MS gathering evidence to sue the state for not desegregating their schools in the 70s and 80s, and Hilarycare in the 90s helped a ton of black kids get healthcare. I am a Democrat because I choose to be one. The Democratic Party is literally the only party that has listened to us in the last 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Many elements of the Democratic Party could be better on race issues but the Republican Party's general attitude towards non whites is basically 'Them Kind Should Respect Their Bettahs' Jenner posted:Which is absolute bullshit. Data shows we as a society do better when minorities are thriving! This kind of poo poo is just suicidal! Racism is a hell of a drug and this divide and conquer poo poo is infuriating. Racism is extremely irrational and is in many ways selfish to self-destructive measures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
I agree that anyone who values civil rights in the US should probably vote Democratic, but the problem is that if the party assumes they'll always get your vote you end up with a problem like what we have in the UK, where the Labour party thought it could always count on working class votes so it moved further to the right to chase Conservative voters, and now your choice is between two right wing parties (or one right wing party, if the Labour vote collapses). I'm just wondering if the Dems have moved right to pick up Republican votes or if it's just because of the stalemate between the branches that just makes it seem that way to an outsider. Although I guess it doesn't matter, Trump's proved it's easier for a political newcomer to take over an existing party than start a new one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:I'm just wondering if the Dems have moved right to pick up Republican votes or if it's just because of the stalemate between the branches that just makes it seem that way to an outsider. If the party has moved to the right (and it really hasn't in any meaningful way, especially if your timescale is more than the last decade), it certainly hasn't been on racial issues. Ironically, the only real rightward push with any momentum going on in the party at the moment is the attempted revolution against/suppression of   IDPOL coming from the left. To put it in your context-it's as if the Controls on Immigration mug was being pushed by the Corbyn wing and not buying one meant you were a Blairite. As others have said-this is not to say that the Democratic Party is wonderful on racial issues and that people shouldn't demand better, but the 2016 primaries were a very solid demonstration that you can't win* in the party while taking minority votes for granted. *Does not apply to some rural districts and statewide elections in certain regions
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:I'm not an American so forgive me for asking, but is the Democratic party actually doing anything for minority rights, or is it just taking their votes for granted and thinking they'll always have them because they're not the Republicans? This last election has been one of the strongest I have seen lately when it comes to advocating for minorities. Hillary Clinton was and remains a very strong person in that regard. I know there is the talking point going around that Democrats are only pushing for identity politics as a screen for their economic interests, but if you look at Hillary Clinton's record with minorities, then one would easily see that she is the real deal when it comes to fighting for minorities. Morby posted:This is kinda veering dangerously into "black people need to get off the Democratic plantation" bullshit IMO. It assumes that we don't know our own minds or can't think for ourselves. No, the Democrats haven't been perfect, but they are the only ones that let us have a seat at the table. Even with the '94 crime bill (which no one cares about anymore) the Clinton administration worked with the Black Caucus to find out our specific concerns and try to draft legislation to address them. The bill as it was written was very popular at the time with our community and it was truly an effort on their part to address a serious problem. Its execution and changes by the GOP is royally hosed, but it would be a lie to say that the administration didn't try to help. Hillary Clinton went undercover in the state of MS gathering evidence to sue the state for not desegregating their schools in the 70s and 80s, and Hilarycare in the 90s helped a ton of black kids get healthcare. This pretty much sums up the situation for me too. As that interview pointed out as well, a lot of these criticisms are coming from the far left or the conservatives. But quite honestly, I was very pleased with the Democrats last election in terms of their platform on diversity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:This last election has been one of the strongest I have seen lately when it comes to advocating for minorities. Hillary Clinton was and remains a very strong person in that regard. I know there is the talking point going around that Democrats are only pushing for identity politics as a screen for their economic interests, but if you look at Hillary Clinton's record with minorities, then one would easily see that she is the real deal when it comes to fighting for minorities. When I caucused for her in the primaries there was a single POC on the Bernie side of the room and over half on our side were POC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Glazier posted:When I caucused for her in the primaries there was a single POC on the Bernie side of the room and over half on our side were POC. And a ton of mostly young white guys were absolutely flabbergasted by this. They don't realize that we had been jokingly calling Bill the first black POTUS for years or that he and Hillary are generally well-regarded in our community. Just because they hadn't heard about it, it didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
A lot of white guys reacted very poorly to it or learned the wrong lesson from it. Stone Cold made a great point in the other thread about how instead of trying to rope in many of the minorities that didn't/couldn't vote. People are doubling down hard on how they can pick up the White working class voters that went for Trump
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Morby posted:And a ton of mostly young white guys were absolutely flabbergasted by this. They don't realize that we had been jokingly calling Bill the first black POTUS for years or that he and Hillary are generally well-regarded in our community. Just because they hadn't heard about it, it didn't exist. But, you see, Hillary called all black people superpredators. It's right there in an out of context quote! blackguy32 posted:A lot of white guys reacted very poorly to it or learned the wrong lesson from it. Stone Cold made a great point in the other thread about how instead of trying to rope in many of the minorities that didn't/couldn't vote. People are doubling down hard on how they can pick up the White working class voters that went for Trump People don't seem to get understand the idea that someone would rather lose everything than pander to racists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Morby posted:And a ton of mostly young white guys were absolutely flabbergasted by this. They don't realize that we had been jokingly calling Bill the first black POTUS for years or that he and Hillary are generally well-regarded in our community. Just because they hadn't heard about it, it didn't exist. I don't entirely blame them because to a lot of them the civil rights battle was "won". They don't remember how groundbreaking it was after the conservative backlash of the late 70's and 80's for a national politician, let alone a southern one, to court the black vote directly. People nowadays think of the Arsenio appearance as just a fun campaign stunt but that was a shot across the bow of the old southern Democratic order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:If the party has moved to the right (and it really hasn't in any meaningful way, especially if your timescale is more than the last decade), it certainly hasn't been on racial issues. Ironically, the only real rightward push with any momentum going on in the party at the moment is the attempted revolution against/suppression of To add to the first point a lot of the 'pandering to moderate' claims seem to come from not embracing a specific 'leftist' view, or political ignorance, if not both. That and a lot of pro-PoC stuff doesn't get as much attention as the anti-PoC stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:But, you see, Hillary called all black people superpredators. It's right there in an out of context quote! I hated that talking point so much. Glazier posted:I don't entirely blame them because to a lot of them the civil rights battle was "won". They don't remember how groundbreaking it was after the conservative backlash of the late 70's and 80's for a national politician, let alone a southern one, to court the black vote directly. People nowadays think of the Arsenio appearance as just a fun campaign stunt but that was a shot across the bow of the old southern Democratic order. Looking back on it now, it's really impressive. Hell, even Dubya looks downright reasonable with his pro-Islam comments in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I doubt we will ever reach a point where that sort of sentiment can be said again by someone on the right. Taerkar posted:To add to the first point a lot of the 'pandering to moderate' claims seem to come from not embracing a specific 'leftist' view, or political ignorance, if not both. Well you've got groups like Justice Democrats that are literally building naughty lists of people not supporting legislation they like that has 0 chance of passing while lauding people like Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
One thing I think it's really hard for people from parliamentary governments to get is that our two-party system is effectively coalition government too. There is no "The Democratic Party." There are lots of them, all working under the same banner. Sometimes together, sometimes not. Our system is not one where third parties can succeed in any meaningful way, so if the coalition isn't representing your interests, pack it with your people until it does. The Tea Party is effectively a completely distinct party from the Republicans, but they run under the Republican banner because that's how things work here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
As TB says the big difference is that the coalitions are formed before the major voting, not after. Most 'fringe' groups that get enough numbers tend to get at least partially absorbed into one of the two major parties with only fragments left over. (Such as Libertarians and the GOP) If anything the closest thing the US has to visible sub-parties are groups like the CBC and the HFC. I don't consider the original Tea Party to be one, or the early repurposing of them after that inexplicable moment in late 2008 to early 2009 when many True Americans decided to join the totally legitimate group that sprung up from nothing as one either. But once they started to primary and (perhaps more importantly) win in primaries they were a true sub-party. Of course what people like Justice Democrats forget is that they were successful because preserving the Status Quo or rolling back things were their goals, both of which can be achieved by obstructionism. Progress tends to be a lot harder and success tends to come in highly irregular bursts. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Morby posted:Well you've got groups like Justice Democrats that are literally building naughty lists of people not supporting legislation they like that has 0 chance of passing while lauding people like Bernie Sanders. So? I don't see anything wrong with shitlists. There's also zero chance of passing much in the way of racial justice legislation right now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be hammering representatives to push it. Coalitions have different interests, and it's up to us to convince others and our politicians that our interests are important, rather than trying to convince people to not give a poo poo about their pet issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:So? I don't see anything wrong with shitlists. There's also zero chance of passing much in the way of racial justice legislation right now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be hammering representatives to push it. Coalitions have different interests, and it's up to us to convince others and our politicians that our interests are important, rather than trying to convince people to not give a poo poo about their pet issues. When John Lewis and Sanford Bishop end up on a shitlist, I have an issue. I also don't like this purity party bullshit that groups like the Justice Democrats pull where anything to the right of Bernie is giving in to being a corporate shill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Such groups/lists also tend to be very narrowly focused and yet claim Full Betrayal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Morby posted:When John Lewis and Sanford Bishop end up on a shitlist, I have an issue. I also don't like this purity party bullshit that groups like the Justice Democrats pull where anything to the right of Bernie is giving in to being a corporate shill. If Lewis is on a shitlist it's for dumb primary drama, which is waaaqy down on the list of things new leftists are concerned with. Unless Lewis goes out of his way to spoil things without a good reason you have nothing to fear. Chuck Schumer was responsible for the now infamous "for every midwestern worker we lose we'll pick up two suburban republicans" line and he's been accepted simply by cooperating with Bernie and his team. It's not as high a bar as one might make it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Isn't class politics identity politics though? I heavily identify with my class as an uplifted poor rust belter. I feel class is an identity and I don't see why we should separate class politics from identity politics. In fact, that seems divisive as gently caress. I don't know if this line of argument will help you with these folks you're bashing your head against though. So much of ones class and socioeconomic status is bound up into race and gender it would foolish to separate them. Which is why I'm glad that I'm of the opinion that it is impossible to eschew race and gender from class because you know if there was a way for white men to shovel poverty wholly onto non-whites and leave them to be forgotten they'd loving do it. I know it's been said a bunch of times but to condense this answer into an easier jumping off point for asker's benefit: to a group that has been repeatedly left behind by social and economic movements that were supposedly supposed to help them, the end result of "identity politics" seems pretty hard to interpret any other way than yet another "actually let's get me first and then we'll get you on the next time around" I think something that somehow gets missed (let's brainstorm words for not understanding or respecting black ppl and double back to it later) is that the goals aren't really all that different; black people and poor people want reliable and quality food water shelter school employment health care police government etc etc etc, it's just that the shapes and sizes of those obstacles are different, and in some cases don't exist at all if you're white. In that context, it's really incredible that black people can be asking for the problems that uniquely or disproportionately affect them to be fixed, and for white people to turn around and say No. So yeah in a roundabout way I'm just agreeing with you that yes race and class are inextricably linked, but hopefully in a way that can be repeated to someone who doesn't Get It yet
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Given we're now chatting about Trump, Clinton, and the working class, would it be OK to do some back-of-a-napkin maths and post the results here? I'm actually a little curious about who won/lost how many votes relative to the 2012 presidential election, especially since a lot of people on SA seem to be making grand assertions one way or the other without citing data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:a lot of pro-PoC stuff doesn't get as much attention as the anti-PoC stuff. This also applies to fiscal leftism. The progress of generations of workers benefits everyone today. 40 hour work week? Fiscal leftism. Union? Fiscal Leftism. Breaks? Fiscal leftism. sick leave? Fiscal Leftism. It's easier to point out the two large cases in history where black americans were left out, and in both instances it was the result of socially conservative politicians who did not want the fiscally leftist bills in the first place. The lesson here isn't "No more fiscal progress!" it's "We need politicians who are just as socially leftist as they are fiscally leftist".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If Lewis is on a shitlist it's for dumb primary drama, which is waaaqy down on the list of things new leftists are concerned with. Unless Lewis goes out of his way to spoil things without a good reason you have nothing to fear. If they are not concerned with racial equality for POC then their little circle jerk doesn't mean poo poo. Putting real civil rights leaders on a hit list over petty primary poo poo is why none of them will ever matter. gently caress Bernie Sanders and his squad
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This also applies to fiscal leftism. The progress of generations of workers benefits everyone today. 40 hour work week? Fiscal leftism. Union? Fiscal Leftism. Breaks? Fiscal leftism. sick leave? Fiscal Leftism. We had one. People treated her like garbage and our supposed allies continue to drag her through the mud. Also there have been more than just 2 cases. Many of those unions that you cited came with a huge heaping case of racism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:If they are not concerned with racial equality for POC then their little circle jerk doesn't mean poo poo. Putting real civil rights leaders on a hit list over petty primary poo poo is why none of them will ever matter. They are concerned for racial equality which is why they were democrats in the first place. They are also concerned for fiscal equality. There already exist lobbies to weed out socially conservative democrats. There is not a lobby to weed out fiscally conservative democrats. Lewis presumably is not a fiscally conservative democrat, so he doesn't have to worry about any resources devoted to ousting him unless he goes out of his way to resist him. A constant theme throughout the primary, the elections, and today is that our generation, my generation, including all colors and creeds, are sick of being told about the greatness of what politicians did decades ago. They want people who will help them now. blackguy32 posted:We had one. People treated her like garbage and our supposed allies continue to drag her through the mud. Also there have been more than just 2 cases. Many of those unions that you cited came with a huge heaping case of racism. And of the fruits of those racist unions' labor, how many black americans see benefit from all today? How many of them were as racist as the public of their time was? Do modern unions share that level of racism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Also this thread is about black people and black people issues not the loving election. Start your own thread if you want to discuss that bullshit
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Also this thread is about black people and black people issues not the loving election. Start your own thread if you want to discuss that bullshit Ironically, regulars within this thread brought up and are arguing about primary stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Ironically, regulars within this thread brought up and are arguing about primary stuff. No, actually we were discussing how there is this huge push by a bunch of white liberals to coddle and reach out to disaffected White working class voters, while telling minorities that the candidate that they voted for is actually worse than Donald Trump. We were just going over about how many minorities don't really give a poo poo about "establishment Dems" like many on the far left do. Neurolimal posted:And of the fruits of those racist unions' labor, how many black americans see benefit from all today? How many of them were as racist as the public of their time was? Do modern unions share that level of racism? We really didn't see poo poo to help us benefit until we fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:We really didn't see poo poo to help us benefit until we fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So that's a yes; in spite of active efforts by racist leaders and racist citizens in a racist era, fiscally left action still benefitted black americans in the long run, by way of both fiscally left activism and socially left activism. Imagine how much more powerful both could be today, with a party unified in their opposition to racism and racial exclusion. The progress that could be made in a time where compromise is dead, and black americans are not excluded from the start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:So that's a yes; in spite of active efforts by racist leaders and racist citizens in a racist era, fiscally left action still benefitted black americans in the long run, by way of both fiscally left activism and socially left activism. Imagine how much more powerful both could be today, with a party unified in their opposition to racism and racial exclusion. The progress that could be made in a time where compromise is dead, and black americans are not excluded from the start. Good God.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Civil Rights happened on the blood of black people and had little to do with any politicians doing more than paying us lip service. But at least they offered us lip service. The left filled with whiteness today doesn't even offer that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Good God. The lesson isn't "its ok to pursue fiscal leftism because blacks will just have another Civil Rights", if that's what left you speechless. It's that in spite of the best efforts at every level of those involved, fiscal leftism still displayed its crucial ties to social leftism. And that both are tied down by each other, so that to run they must both be lifted. A party of workers cannot succeed by ignoring minority workers, just as a party of egalitarians cannot succeed without the support of the workers. In spite of ones best efforts to stretch their progress the success of a few downtrodden will always lead to the success of all downtrodden. The best they can do is delay us through division. Black workers still saw the fruit collected by unions, just as workers still saw the fruit of freed workers. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The lesson isn't "its ok to pursue fiscal leftism because blacks will just have another Civil Rights", if that's what left you speechless. It's that in spite of the best efforts at every level of those involved, fiscal leftism still displayed its crucial ties to social leftism. And that both are tied down by each other, so that to run they must both be lifted. Can you please stop using the phrase "fiscal leftism" because every time I read it a coyote physically manifests in my house and howls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Also we are black people not "blacks" so knock that poo poo off
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:So that's a yes; in spite of active efforts by racist leaders and racist citizens in a racist era, fiscally left action still benefitted black americans in the long run, by way of both fiscally left activism and socially left activism. Imagine how much more powerful both could be today, with a party unified in their opposition to racism and racial exclusion. The progress that could be made in a time where compromise is dead, and black americans are not excluded from the start. Holy loving poo poo. You could not be any more tone deaf to push your fiscal equality above all. It's like you didn't even loving read my post. Those union protections, didn't really mean poo poo until black people fought for acceptance and equality. It is the same fight we are fighting today about how those economic protections aren't going to mean poo poo unless we fight for acceptance and equality. It's like you want us to grovel at the feet of poo poo stains of union leaders that excluded us because by pure coincidence we managed to secure some aspect of equality for ourselves, because I guarantee you, those union leaders? They didn't give a gently caress about us. I am distrustful of the far left. The excluded us from the start, and still continue to exclude us. They would rather drag down good well meaning people who actually spoke up for us and fight for us with right wing talking points instead of going after the person that is doing real damage to us. They would rather go after the party that has been allied with us instead of going after a bunch of vile racist poo poo. They would rather listen to the cries of White Working Class people rather than listen to disenfranchised people of color. No, I don't trust that these people have my best interests at heart. We are just a side note to them and the only reason we got recognition was because we bitched and complained and even then after that, that is all we got. A side note.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Also we are black people not "blacks" so knock that poo poo off The idea of that false quote was for it to sound like a careless goofus was saying it without respect or knowledge of black american plight. If you look back you'll see that I take care to refer to black americans as black americans. If you're referring to another post, I would appreciate that you point it out so that I may edit it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
I hate to sound like #NotAllLeftists, but can we stop referring to Sanders and his supporters as 'the left'? He's a milquetoast SocDem and they only support him because they're not racist enough to vote Republican but too racist to agree with the Black Panthers. It just seems like some people here are ignoring the massive contribution that black people have made to Marxism and similar ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:46
|
|