Why "Bernie was arrested in '63" is an inappropriate answer to criticism of his civil rights record

[EffieBlack]

Let me preface this by saying this is in no way an attack on - or even a criticism of - Bernie Sanders or a diminishment of his civil rights activism in the 1960s or an effort to "refight the primaries."

But all too frequently, any attempt to question or, God forbid, criticize, Sanders' record, attitudes or comments on civil rights today is met with a reminder that he was arrested while protesting for civil rights in 1963, often with an accompanying photograph and sarcastic comments such as "Here's a picture of Bernie hating black people," or similarly snide remarks.

So, let me explain why such responses to questions about Sanders' current record are not only completely beside the point, but show an ignorance about the civil rights movement, not to mention an arrogance and paternalism that is very galling to me and many other African Americans. Maybe, once folks understand this in a little more depth, they will be less likely to dismiss us in such a way.

First, I think it's great that Bernie Sanders and tens of thousands of other young white college students participated in civil rights protests across the country during the 1960s. They truly made a difference, whatever their contribution.

Some, like Bernie, participated in protests at or near their schools. Some traveled to other parts of the country to protest. Some went into the deep South to help organize and work on an ongoing basis. Some joined protests that put them in serious danger - such as the Freedom Riders who had no idea whether they would come back alive and, sadly, some did not. But whatever the degree and depth of their participation, every one made a difference.

Bernie Sanders' participation was admirable and laudable and appreciated. But he did not get involved or make the kinds of sacrifices that many other students made. Again - that's not a knock on him, just the reality. He participated in protests in which he knew that he would not face great harm or risk to his body, life or future. He joined a protest in which the students planned to be arrested, practiced for it (the movement trained protesters in non-violence and how to be arrested so as not to be injured or accused of resisting arrest). He also likely knew, going in, that, like most white students in these protests, he would not be physically abused, his rights would be protected, he would be released shortly thereafter and his penalty would be a small fine - in this case $25 - and the arrest would not have any negative impact on his education or future career.

The benefit of this type of protest did not come in the suffering or brutality that many black and white protesters endured elsewhere, but in showing the country the power and numbers behind the movement. And they were very important and very effective.

So, I have nothing but praise for what Bernie did in 1963. He was a small part of something very important. He did the right thing. He could have stayed in his comfy dorm room, but he went out, inconvenienced himself, and lent himself to the fight. He was on the right side of history.

But people should recognize that participating in a righteous fight in the past does not, in and of itself, completely define a person for all time. Charlton Heston marched with Dr. King. As a college student, Mitch McConnell participated in the March on Washington and worked for a senator who helped to break the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I'm certainly not comparing Bernie to these two men, but just noting that support for civil rights in 1964 does not, by itself, mean that someone's positions can't be and shouldn't be questioned. And it surely doesn't make those who participated in it civil rights experts or icons who must be revered by virtue of what they did 55 years ago.

But more important is this simple fact: The civil rights movement was not a gift to black people. It wasn't a movement in which white people GAVE something to or did something for us. It was a movement, led by black people, in which Americans of all races joined together, prayed together, fought together and died together not to save us but to save AMERICA.

So, in my view, the notion that participation in the movement confers on a white person some special grace because they did something for black people and, as a result, black people must be forever grateful and cannot ever raise any question about their positions is not just insulting, it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the civil rights movement really was. And it reveals a shallow and paternalistic view of civil rights and social justice as a movement based on an erroneous assumption that YOU did something for US and we should be forever grateful - and if we aren't, we are somehow betraying YOU.

For me, the bottom line is that Bernie Sanders did the right thing in 1963. I give him a lot of credit for that. But that credit is not unlimited and it definitely isn't a bottomless store of goodwill that shields him from any responsibility for or scrutiny of his subsequent actions, positions, views, or comments today. I appreciate what he did, but I don't OWE him anything, including reverent acceptance of whatever he says or does, for it.

So, again, I say, Thank you, Senator Sanders for doing the right thing 55 years ago and joining with us to help bring America closer to the more perfect union that we ALL want it to be. Now, let's talk about how you can continue to walk on that path with us now.

There's another point I want to make today. Just as Dr. King predicted, the rise of black southerners to full citizenship also lifted their white neighbors. "It is history's wry paradox," he said, "that when Negroes win their struggle to be free, those who have held them down will themselves be free for the first time."

After Selma, free white and black southerners crossed the bridge to the new South, leaving hatred and isolation on the far side—building vibrant cities, thriving economies, and great universities, a new South still enriched by the oldtime religion and rhythms and rituals we all love, now open to all things modern and people of all races and faiths from all over the world, a new South in which whites have gained at least as much as blacks from the march to freedom. Without Selma, Atlanta would never have had the Super Bowl or the Olympics. And without Selma, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would never have been elected President of the United States.
...
My fellow Americans, this day has a special meaning for me, for I, too, am a son of the South, the old, segregated South. And those of you who marched 35 years ago set me free, too, on Bloody Sunday, free to know you, to work with you, to love you, to raise my child to celebrate our differences and hallow our common humanity.

I thank you all for what you did here. Thank you, Andy and Jesse and Joe, for the lives you have lived since. Thank you, Coretta, for giving up your beloved husband and the blessings of a normal life. Thank you, Ethel Kennedy, for giving up your beloved husband and the blessings of a normal life.

And thank you, John Lewis, for the beatings you took and the heart you kept wide open. Thank you for walking with the wind, hand in hand with your brothers and sisters, to hold America's trembling house down. Thank you for your vision of the beloved community, an America at peace with itself.

I tell you all, as long as Americans are willing to hold hands, we can walk with any wind; we can cross any bridge. Deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall overcome."

President Bill Clinton, Remarks on the 35th Anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March in Selma, Alabama
March 5, 2000

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58210

[brooklynite]

1. This should be fun.....

[trixie2]

71. I don't understand why Sanders has so much realty on here

He's not a Democrat. He could change his affiliation but doesn't. He seems happy to be an Independent. I will only get behind a Democrat. If people like him then why not start a separate website for him?

I don't dislike him but I do see when he gets in our way.

[Me.]

2. Excellent Read

Recce

[mcar]

3. "He was a small part of something very important. He did the right thing."

So, in my view, the notion that participation in the movement confers on a white person some special grace because they did something for black people and, as a result, black people must be forever grateful and cannot ever raise any question about their positions is not just insulting, it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the civil rights movement really was. And it reveals a shallow and paternalistic view of civil rights and social justice as a movement based on an erroneous assumption that YOU did something for US and we should be forever grateful - and if we aren't, we are somehow betraying YOU.

For me, the bottom line is that Bernie Sanders did the right thing in 1963. I give him a lot of credit for that. But that credit is not unlimited and it definitely isn't a bottomless store of goodwill that shields him from any responsibility for or scrutiny of his subsequent actions, positions, views, or comments today. I appreciate what he did, but I don't OWE him anything, including reverent acceptance of whatever he says or does, for it.

Thank you, Effie, for another great OP!

[Gothmog]

4. K&R

[Billy Jingo]

5. Wow! You really beat the crap out of that strawman!

... the notion that participation in the movement confers on a white person some special grace because they did something for black people and, as a result, black people must be forever grateful and cannot ever raise any question about their positions is not just insulting, it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the civil rights movement really was.




Kudos!

[LexVegas]

17. ...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

24. How wonderfully mature of a response.

[chwaliszewski]

36. That's the latest thing here.

The 'crying smiley' seems to be the way members respond, especially to anyone trying to defend Bernie. It's kind of like the way Liberals are called 'snowflakes' from Conservatives. I find it condescending and unnecessary but hey, freedom.

[Caliman73]

88. That was not a strawman.

There are valid criticisms of Senator Sander's remarks regarding President Obama recently and regarding the Democratic Party's efforts with African American voters, that were seen by many people of color as patronizing. There were threads within the last few days that show the divergence of opinion on the matter, and undoubtedly, there were people who took the position of trying to inoculate Sanders from criticism by touting his activism 50+ years ago.

Senator Sanders has a populist economic message that he has used to very good effect in driving the political discourse, but he has been less than stellar in dealing with the very real racial biases that play into economic and social disparities. His message has focused mainly on economics.

[Orsino]

6. Very well said.

If Hillary's Goldwater past doesn't count for much, Bernie's ancient civil rights activism isn't a permanent innoculation, either.

[pnwmom]

29. Hillary was a high school student still living with her Republican parents

when she was a Goldwater girl.

Bernie was raised by progressives. So he started out with a progressive family background and she didn't.

Then Hillary went to Wellesley College, where her studies led her to very different views. By the time Hillary was Bernie's age when he marched for MLK (22), she was writing her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky. So, though she had Republican parents, she had become a progressive on her own.

[Orsino]

34. Hillary doesn't need to be defended for Goldwatering.

She left that shit behind.

[Eliot Rosewater]

81. She shouldnt have to be but she is BASHED constantly EVERYWHERE about that

and other things.

It is the "fashionable" thing to do, BASH BASH BASH Hillary.

[DinahMoeHum]

7. Agreed. At this point, it's ancient history.

Thing is, what has he been doing lately?

[progressoid]

43. What has anyone in the Democratic party been doing lately?

Other than bitching about the non-Democratic Senator?

[mountain grammy]

63. Great question..

and what have they done in the past? The Clinton Administration made some big mistakes that, in my opinion, hurt the cause, but why would we talk about that? But, pretty sure the answer will be

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

133. The answer for sure. hahaha!!

[sammythecat]

123. I notice there is no response to your question

Gee, I wonder why.

[EffieBlack]

125. I notice you had no response to my response to the question

I assume that means the question was answered satisfactorily?

[emulatorloo]

129. Because his question was factually un-informed

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210468176#post124

[EffieBlack]

124. Your question isn't pertinent to the point of my OP

But since you asked - here are a few things that some Democrats have been doing lately:

Congressmen arrested for protesting over immigration outside Trump Tower

September 19, 2017

Three congressmen were among a group of protesters arrested outside Trump Tower on Tuesday, where they were participating in a demonstration in support of immigrants and protections recently ended by the Trump administration.

Democratic Reps. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Adriano Espaillat of New York were arrested on civil disobedience charges along with the speaker of the New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, and six others, according to lawmakers' offices and Robin Levine, the spokeswoman with Mark-Viverito's office.



https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/congressmen-arrested-trump-tower-daca/index.html

Congressman Gutierrez Arrested At White House Protest
July 26, 2011

U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) was arrested during an immigration protest at the White House on Tuesday.

Gutierrez spokesman Douglas Rivlin confirmed the congressman was arrested outside the White House Tuesday afternoon, along with about 11 other people who were sitting on the sidewalk in front of the White House as part of an immigration protest.
?w=640&h=360&crop=1

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/26/congressman-gutierrez-arrested-at-white-house-protest/

8 Congressmen Arrested During Immigration Rally In D.C.
October 8, 2013

At least eight Democratic members of the House were among about 200 people arrested Tuesday after they blocked a main street near the Capitol during a massive rally seeking to push Republicans to hold a vote on a stalled immigration reform bill.

Police would not identify those arrested. Representatives of the social policy organization Center for Community Change and The Associated Press witnessed the arrests of Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga.; Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill.; Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.; Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Joseph Crowley and Charles Rangel, both D-N.Y.; Al Green, D-Texas; and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.,
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/rep-john-lewis-arrested-during-washington-rally/

Link to tweet

5 Lawmakers Arrested In Darfur Protest

April 27, 2006

Five Congress members were arrested and led away from the Sudanese Embassy in plastic handcuffs Friday in protest of the Sudanese government's role in atrocities in the Darfur region.
"The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a Holocaust survivor who founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said from the embassy steps before his arrest.

Four other Democratic Congress members — James McGovern and John Olver of Massachusetts, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jim Moran of Virginia — were among 11 protesters arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly, a misdemeanor subject to a fine.






https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5-lawmakers-arrested-in-darfur-protest/

[emulatorloo]

128. Big fail. You got your ass handed to you above. And Bernie doesnt need your kind of help

if your way of “helping” is making ill-informed baseless smears of Democrats.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210468176#post124

You wanna support Bernie, then support Bernie by talking about the positive things he is doing and has done.

Ill-informed smears like yours detract from what Bernie stands for.

[all american girl]

8. Another outstanding post

Thank you Effie...love your writings.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Very good

But once again the alert squad was out.

[EffieBlack]

20. Of course

[Exotica]

10. The civil rights movement was not a gift to black people. It wasn't a movement in which white people

GAVE something to or did something for us.

hear hear!

[NurseJackie]

11. Outstanding post, Effie. (Thank you!)

But people should recognize that participating in a righteous fight in the past does not, in and of itself, completely define a person for all time. Charlton Heston marched with Dr. King. As a college student, Mitch McConnell participated in the March on Washington and worked for a senator who helped to break the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I'm certainly not comparing Bernie to these two men, but just noting that support for civil rights in 1964 does not, by itself, mean that someone's positions can't be and shouldn't be questioned. And it surely doesn't make those who participated in it civil rights experts or icons who must be revered by virtue of what they did 55 years ago.

[mia]

12. Thank you

Great post.

[sheshe2]

13. K&R

Thank you Effie. Teach.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. K&R. Thank you for the work you do here. You shouldn't have to but I appreciate it.

[EffieBlack]

22. Thanks

[WhiskeyGrinder]

42. TRUTH

[grantcart]

46. I may have to ratio this on my forehead

[kstewart33]

15. Thank you, Effie.

[yardwork]

16. Another important post. Thank you.

[hueymahl]

18. Good Post, but you are triggering those with BDS*

*Bernie Derangement Syndrome. Symptoms: One mention of Bernie, regardless of the context, causes twitchy fingers, paranoia, heightened blood pressure and an overwhelming need to fight the last primary.

[Ferrets are Cool]

19. I've always heard that anytime you place a "BUT" after your

first sentence, it completely negates anything you say afterwards. YMMV

[PJMcK]

25. Or the reverse

Whatever you say afterwards often negates the statement before the "but."

For example, "I'm not racist but everything is (fill in the blank)'s fault."

Nonetheless, it's one of the ways people reveal themselves, isn't it?

[AtomicKitten]

69. GOT Jon Snow: "Father always said everything before the word 'but' is horseshit.'

[Ferrets are Cool]

104. LOL yes, you are so right. My bad.

[PJMcK]

105. No bad, Ferrets

Your point and my reversal are both true!

The things is, that's how we see who people really are. I met someone recently who has an underground shelter, (he calls it his man-cave!). It's packed with food, water, clothing, communications equipment, weapons and ammunition. He said to me, "I'm not a prepper but I believe it's important to be prepared." Okay, I thought, you've told me something revealing, didn't you?

Enjoy your evening!

[Ferrets are Cool]

107. That story is hilarious. TY for sharing it.

Oh, I am enjoying my evening watching Rachael.

[LanternWaste]

27. One may safely presume 'however', 'although' and 'yet' also used to express this alleged negation

I've never seen that verified or validated by logic or grammar. But I get it... it's on the internet and we hold on to those bumper-stickers which validate our narrative, regardless of their lack of logic or critical thought.

One may safely presume 'however', 'although' and 'yet' are also used to express this alleged negation not found anywhere in formal grammar structure too, yes?

Or is your premise simply something you've simply always heard, simply not examined, simply accepted without thought (other than your mileage, of course) and went on with a simple life? Sounds... simple. That may be why it's so popular and trendy in the bumper-sticker crowd.

[pnwmom]

30. Wrong. It's the opposite, actually. nt

[EffieBlack]

31. Because actually addressing the points in my OP is just too difficult?

[TCJ70]

68. Hrmmm...where'd ya read that.

I wonder...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10456696

[EffieBlack]

70. I'm so glad you're reading my posts!

Now if you could just work on understanding them, that would be awesome for you.

But you're off to a good start.

[EffieBlack]

75. I can't believe anyone actually has to explain this to you

And I also can't believe that I'm taking the time to do it, but here goes.

Please read the following two excerpts from my two different OPs.

One of these things is not like the other. Can you tell us why they're different and why that matters?

1.

"He's smart and nice, but he just doesn't have what it takes"
"She's really sweet and everyone likes her, but she just isn't fitting in"
"He has a great personality, but I'm just not sure he can do the job."
"Sure he's a good talker, but ..."
"You can't deny his charisma, but he's not ..."
"He may be a nice guy, BUT he's just not competent ..."

2.

"Let me preface this by saying this is in no way an attack on - or even a criticism of - Bernie Sanders or a diminishment of his civil rights activism in the 1960s or an effort to 'refight the primaries.' But all too frequently, any attempt to question or, God forbid, criticize, Sanders' record, attitudes or comments on civil rights today is met with a reminder that he was arrested while protesting for civil rights in 1963, often with an accompanying photograph and sarcastic comments such as 'Here's a picture of Bernie hating black people,' or similarly snide remarks."

"Bernie Sanders' participation was admirable and laudable and appreciated. But he did not get involved or make the kinds of sacrifices that many other students made. "

"He could have stayed in his comfy dorm room, but he went out, inconvenienced himself, and lent himself to the fight."

"He was on the right side of history. But people should recognize that participating in a righteous fight in the past does not, in and of itself, completely define a person for all time."

"For me, the bottom line is that Bernie Sanders did the right thing in 1963. I give him a lot of credit for that. But that credit is not unlimited and it definitely isn't a bottomless store of goodwill that shields him from any responsibility for or scrutiny of his subsequent actions, positions, views, or comments today."

"I appreciate what he did, but I don't OWE him anything, including reverent acceptance of whatever he says or does, for it."

[treestar]

82. It can be far more subtle than that

It does not have to completely negate. It could explain or carve out an exception or a certain situation.

[David__77]

151. I think it tends to negate what came before the but.

...

[BumRushDaShow]

23. Here is something from 1964 that was prescient

Not only figuratively but even literally right here on DU.

[jg10003]

26. 27 years in congress, NAACP 100% approval 27 times

[EffieBlack]

28. That's nice

But completely beside the point.

No one that I know of has spent a lot of time criticizing Bernie Sanders for the way he has voted. With few exceptions, he has voted with other Democrats - 42 of whom who also get 100% rating from the NAACP on the last scorecard. Hardly surprising, given his very liberal Vermont constituency. Given that constituency and the voting records and patterns of the entire Democratic caucus, it would be shocking if he DIDN'T get 100%

Nevertheless, that's not the issue I'm addressing. I assume you either know that or have completely missed my point.

[Brogrizzly]

33. Good read, thank you.

Sidenote comment, my feelings on Bernie is he is considered way more influential than he actual is. He reminds me of my alcoholic uncle on Thanksgiving, loud, repetitive, makes me chuckle, asleep by 5 in the afternoon.

[EffieBlack]

35. LOL!

Reminds me of how my family used to love their Congressman because every time they saw him on television, he was screaming and shaking his fist. My uncle always said, "He really FIGHTS!" It was a real accomplishment to finally get them to understand that: 1) he was screaming and yelling on the floor of the House but the chamber was usually empty and no one was listening to him; 2) he hadn't brought job #1 to their district; 3) they never once saw him anywhere in their community.

[Brogrizzly]

39. Wow how similar themes to a recent photo op disaster, guns I think?

But don’t get me wrong, I like Bernie generally. I believe he does much out of kindness, he just also is a political beast. Those two motives seem to me at least at a national level, mix too well. Interesting podcast on tribal psychology, I think when it comes to Bernie, this is in effect. People can’t see past the Bernie groupthink protectionism, because their part of the that tribe. But of course you can apply that to all people.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/you-are-not-so-smart/id521594713?mt=2&i=1000403842022

[BumRushDaShow]

41. "he was screaming and yelling on the floor of the House but the chamber was usually empty"

My first and only visit (to date) to the House chamber allowed me to experience (the later-disgraced) Congressman Dan Rostenkowski doing just that! And no one was there in the chamber except the few of us sitting up in the visitor's galley.

I do occasionally watch the "Special Orders" speeches like that where Congress members will actually "read their remarks into the record" via this method vs just handing in a copy of their remarks to be automatically entered. And if they are out there giving their remarks, CSPAN will air it until the last one is done - even if it goes late into the night.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. My (D) Senator Bob Casey

has a 100% NAACP rating and I certainly wouldn't spout that to prove some kind of "street cred" except to say that the group finds his policy votes and sponsored legislation are generally aligned with the group's mission.

[EffieBlack]

37. Well said. Thanks.

[brer cat]

38. K&R

[pnwmom]

40. Thank you! n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. If it is not a bash-Sanders thread, why start it at all? Save a post like this for a reply

... like when somebody actually raises this defense. Then stick it in your journal.

[EffieBlack]

45. How is this a "bash Sanders thread?"

What specifically in my OP is critical of, much less "bashes" Bernie Sanders?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. You scratch an open wound UNnecessarily, keeping it festering without healing. . . . nt

[EffieBlack]

48. So, it's NOT a "bash Sanders" thread, then but "scratches an open wound?"

How specifically does it "scratch an open wound?"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. Call it that if you prefer, because it does that. It was UNnecessary to start a THREAD.

Answered when I wrote that previously!

Save it for a reply when someone ACTUALLY uses that argument. Then post it. That would be responsive. This is unprovoked and unnecessary. That's what makes it scratching an open wound. That there is an open wound is undeniable.

[EffieBlack]

53. Perhaps you'd like to join THIS thread, which occurred BEFORE my OP, and admonish folk not to

PROVOKE the responses from me that you say I should provide only upon being PROVOKED to do so.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10467608

Thanks!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

78. That backhanded argument is not you at your best.

"But but he provoked me! He mustn't provoke me!" It's asking a lot for a writer to provide individual caveats that address personally every potential reader of something they write.

If you had posted your essay in reply there, upon being provoked, that would be great. And post it in reply every time you are similarly provoked, if you feel that the points you make have been missed or the writer was not cognizant of them.

Here a handy way to accomplish that. Open a new reply to a post, find the most recent posting of your essay, go to it, open it for "Edit my post" and copy it into the new reply and post and then back out of the "edit" tab or window where you copied from.

Your essay is well written and deserves to be seen in context, but I wish DU would not unnecessarily scratch the open wound.

[EffieBlack]

80. Thank you for your "feedback."

[Cha]

97. You're not the boss.. I'm glad Effie Black post as she

wants to.. not as you want her to..

[George II]

66. It's known as "vetting" a potential candidate, something that is finally being done here on DU

Thanks Effie!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

79. Vetting is great. Opening this thread out of context is not the best way to do that, I feel. . nt

[George II]

83. How can an OP be "out of context"? It is it's own context.

[EffieBlack]

84. Apparently, some topics are only to be discussed in "quiet rooms" nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

86. Nonsense. Nothing I wrote implies that. I even encouraged you to use it as a reply multiple times.

Your essay deserves reading but DU and Democratic Party history present situations where opening a new thread might produce a negative effect while there would be positive benefit using it as a reply (in multiple places).

[EffieBlack]

90. "Quiet Rooms" buried in various random threads in response to various random posts

But, as I said, I appreciate your advice about where, when and how I should post my comments.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

85. Of course. I feel that creating a context like that was unnecessary for what is a "response".

As the OP says, it was in response to a post somewhere else, and that would be the place for it. Similarly other posts that miss the points that EffieBlack makes would benefit from his post, which is a good essay worthy of being used multiple times as a reply because the context does arise again from time to time.

But the nature of recent history is that there is this open wound at DU and creating a context with an OP would best be carefully considered. EffieBlack surely did that, but I disagree with the need to create the context in this case as it effectively scratches the wound without promoting healing even though it would be beneficial where the appropriate context already exists (in reply to a post).

[Cha]

118. When all else fails..

"..it's out of context.."

[EffieBlack]

119. Indeed. Nt

[Plucketeer]

49. +1000 nt

[EffieBlack]

52. Oh, and thanks for your advice on where and how I should communicate on DU

But, fyi - I wrote this today especially BECAUSE once again, in fact, this very morning, someone posted the picture to which I referred with a sarcastic comment about Bernie "using black people as props." I responded to it then and there but decided that my explanation would benefit more than just the person who posted it, particularly given how often some folks resort to this tactic.

So, while I really appreciate your guidance about when and how I should respond to topics and issues of concern to me, I am more than capable of figuring out for myself how I would like to engage on DU.

But, since we're giving advice about this sort of thing, I encourage YOU to step up and admonish people against " scratching open wounds" whenever they post this picture with snark in response to anyone raising a valid question about Bernie Sanders' current positions and approaches to civil rights. If more people weighed in and pushed back against this sort of thing, I wouldn't have to spend so much of my time trying to explain these matters here.

Thanks!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. If we can't give each other feedback, we lose a way to improve. You can reply to POST you mention.

Your OP does not provide a link to the post that you claim prompted you to start this thread! I have no idea what picture you refer to.

When you reply to a post, it is obvious that more than one person reads it and benefits from it. Same thing happens when you put the reply in your journal. You do not need to start a thread to have more than one person read and benefit. You did not need to start a thread to make a reply to a post, a post you don't even link to!

You are welcome to engage DU the way you want and I am free to give unsolicited feedback if I want. If I did not think people are capable of improving I would not spend the time doing so. If you wish to reject advice, so be it. Others may accept it and moderate their own behavior, because more than one person reads replies.

[EffieBlack]

61. I posted it in another reply to you, but here it is again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10467608

And instructing me where and how I should post goes far beyond "feedback."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

72. Purism in feedback & instruction is impractical. As if your post there didn't "instruct". & OP here.

(emphasis added)

let me explain why such responses to questions about Sanders' current record are not only completely beside the point, but show an ignorance about the civil rights movement, not to mention an arrogance and paternalism that is very galling to me

While it is technically possible to carefully word a post to entirely fit one form or the other, in practice it is not practical to write that purely and not even necessarily desirable to do so. Feedback and instruction are closely intertwined. Most readers are fine with the intermingling of the two that is unavoidable in everyday discussion.

If you don't like some advice, it is easy to ignore it. If you have something meaningful to say about the feedback (points of fact, issues of methodology, discussion of the actual advice) then I'm interested (feedback about the feedback).

Simply rejecting it verbosely says more about you than the advice ever could. The advice is not about you, it's about helping DU and the way you wrote that was unhelpful. I get the point of your OP and it is a fair one in my opinion, well written and thoughtful, but was misplaced.

[emulatorloo]

132. Just alert on the thread and be done with. Or else simply trash the thread

[Cha]

96. Don't tell Effie how to post.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

98. Perhaps we should hope you take your own advice about telling people how to post. . . . nt

[Cha]

100. Oh right.. just keep it up then, if you so desire

Thanks for kicking the Thread. You're still not the boss.

[The Polack MSgt]

108. Heh. Thanx coach

I'm positive EffieBlack appreciates your tips.

The rest of us are watching enthralled.

[EffieBlack]

116. I certainly do. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Of course that's true. But what's the point?

Commitments made as a youth often define one's values in subsequent years. That was true for me, and if the right committeemen were made by Bernie in youth, that is a hell of a lot better than making the wrong ones then. But yeah that was them.

And this was over twenty years later:
Bernie Sanders Was Slapped for Supporting Jesse Jackson in ’88

"During the 1988 Democratic Presidential Primaries, Rev. Jesse Jackson emerged as a viable contender for the Democratic nomination against establishment-backed Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. An ardent supporter of Mr. Jackson’s presidential bid was Bernie Sanders—then mayor of Burlington, Vermont. During a Democratic caucus, Mr. Sanders gave a speech in support of Mr. Jackson while Democrats in the room turned their backs—and, as he walked off stage, a woman slapped him across the face. Mr. Sanders was one of the few elected officials to cross racial lines and openly endorse Mr. Jackson, ultimately helping Mr. Jackson win Vermont against Mr. Dukakis by one delegate in 1988. Although Mr. Dukakis would win the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Jackson made it closer to the presidency than any black person before him."

That too was then and this remains now. In and of itself nothing to indicate a pattern of significant leadership on civil rights issues true, but still evidence of some willingness to step forward regarding that. Millions of other whites have done the same. But then again millions of other whites have not. And therein lies the crux all of our larger struggle. If picking the best leader in regards to furthering the ongoing work of the civil rights movement is a critical prerequisite, well many can argue Bernie Sanders isn't that best choice. Clearly most African Americans preferred Hillary Clinton in 2016 to Bernie Sanders in that regard, which is meaningful. But that was far from unanimous. Some like Henry Belafonte and Ben Jelous preferred Bernie over Hillary. They were in the minority on that, maybe they should have thought about their choices longer, or maybe not. But the African Americans who did support Bernie Sanders, clearly believed that Sanders opposed racism, which in fact he does - to this day.

That doesn't make him the right choice for you unless you find other reasons to support Bernie's career in politics. His voting record should not be considered meaningless though. Vermont was not always safely Liberal, for years it frequently elected Republicans who were less dependable on race issues in Congress than was Bernie Sanders who remained in Congress by defeating Republicans in multiple state wide races.

Simply put I would ask no one to consider Bernie Sanders a strong proponent of their cause unless they truly felt he actually was. But where is the attention being paid now to all of the other elected Democrats who have done no more and often less than Bernie Sanders has on race issues? You can argue that Sanders is no champion, but why is he treated as an adversary instead? That isn't explained by the points above which you so otherwise so well made.

[EffieBlack]

56. I find it hard to believe you missed the point. But let me explain it again

When people - especially African Americans - raise any question about any position or comment or approach from Bernie Sanders related to civil rights, invariably we are told that it is wrong, unfair, divisive, etc. to raise such questions of Sanders because, after all, he was arrested protesting segregation in 1963. It is clear that some people believe that the fact that Sanders protested in the 1960s is proof positive of where he stands now and should completely absolve him of ever having his current approaches to civil rights questioned in any way.

This happened as recently as this morning when a photo was posted of him being arrested in response to such questions. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10467608

So, my OP - as should be abundantly clear by its literal words and tone - was not about whether or not Sanders' is or isn't good on civil rights. It focuses ONLY on the fallacy of using his long-ago protest as conclusive proof of where he stands now or as a method to shut down even any discussion of his current approaches. The fact that he protested in the 1960s does not mean anyone who questions his actions today is bashing him, calling him a racist, accusing him of being anti-civil rights or anything else negative.

It's very simple.

I can't believe I still have to EXPLAIN this shit ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. I got that point

Like I said, it was well stated. What's the point though in efforts to make Bernie Sanders a daily topic of negative discussion on DU , always cast in one negative light or another including how he deals with race? It's been going on for a long time. I get that things he may have done decades ago don't prove him a sage on racial issues today. We can argue about his leadership, but his voting record on civil rights remains excellent. True, as you point out, he is not unique in that regard. That may not make Bernie Sanders a civil rights leader but he gets presented by his opponents on DU as an embodiment of white male privilege, more supportive to the suffering of potential West Virginia lynch mobs than to the needs of African Americans. True he is not called a racist, but he is treated as an adversary here while our Party still views him as an ally

If this were already primary season I would understand it (hate it but understand it). Both Hillary and Bill Clinton were called to task on racial issues here during the primary campaign against Barack Obama. Sanders faced that here during the last primaries. Hillary faced different shit. I'm not saying those discussions are always non legitimate, but context matters. I doubt those pointing to actions Sanders took earlier in his life opposing racism think that proves he can not be wrong in any of his opinions on race today. I think it is offered as evidence of his general good intentions. Some have the sense that Sanders is being singled out for being a white politician who is minimally out of step with the black community, if not one actually opposed to addressing issues that are important to the black community.

We try to have debates like that in between general election cycles because they otherwise drive one group.or another of the Democratic coalition away from participating on sites like this when energy should be building for the November elections. If Sanders expresses interest in running for President again, after November, there are many discussions that will make sense to have then but not so much now.

[EffieBlack]

94. My post does not "make Bernie Sanders a daily topic of negative discussion"

Not at all.

It respectfully addresses and explains why one particular but pervasive response on a specific topic that comes up over an over again is problematic. It doesn't make any negative judgment of Bernie - in fact, it's full of rather effusive praise for him.

Addressing what I see to be a negative, divisive and harmful tactic - suggesting that Sanders is owed some large level of gratitude because he was involved in the civil rights movement - that came up again as recently as this morning, is the very opposite of negative. By logically and calmly explaining why this approach is both inaccurate and off-putting, my goal is to help people think through how they're approaching and framing some of the discussions here and. hopefully, encourage them to be more mindful in the future.

This is, in my view, how these matters should be discussed on DU. The only other alternatives are to respond to this ad hoc each time it comes up - which is tiresome, frustrating and often lost on many of the people who really need to hear it, not to mention likely to provoke defensiveness and distraction as everybody goes to their corners and fights it out thread by thread - or to just shut up and ignore it, which is not an acceptable option.

So, it's unfortunate that you choose to read my OP as a negative attack on Bernie, but that is your choice, not mine.

FYI, if Bernie is being "singled out," it's because, unlike most other politicians - even those with good civil rights records and records of protesting in the past - he holds himself out as superior to other politicians on civil rights, is very quick to lecture others about how civil rights should be handled, and refuses to even consider changing his approach on civil rights, for example, in relation to his economic equality message. His positioning as an "expert" combined with his and his supporters frequent reference to the fact that he was once arrested is the reason this issue keeps coming up.

[IronLionZion]

54. In all of these types of threads, I fail to see what terrible things Bernie has done

It must have been too horrible to post.

As a dark brown American, I'd want to know if one of our politicians is being racist towards me or my people and what exactly they did or said.

On a completely unrelated note, Hillary and Biden have shared racist stereotypes of my people and I didn't hesitate to vote for both of them. Some elderly white Dems sharing thoughtless jokes is nothing compared to what Republicans do to us out of malicious spite.

[EffieBlack]

59. Either you didn't read my OP or you're being ridiculous on purpose.

[IronLionZion]

65. What's your purpose?

[EffieBlack]

67. I explicitly stated it in my OP

Beyond that, I don't need to explain myself to you.

[David__77]

55. I dont know if its inappropriate. I dont find it especially pertinent.

I would, for instance, find his voting record on various subjects to be more Pertinent.

[EffieBlack]

57. Then please feel free to ignore it if it's not pertinent to you

[David__77]

60. I referred to the reference to past participation in demonstrations.

I was not referring to the pertinence of your point.

[EffieBlack]

62. Got it. I misunderstood you.

Sorry!

[David__77]

64. No problem at all!

I can understand the point.

As a gay person, I can imagine not being especially receptive to hearing about so-and-so marching for gay rights in the past.

[mudstump]

73. Bash, bash, bash...

keep bashing Bernie and you will eventually drive millions of Bernie supporters (the vast majority are long-time democrats btw) away from the party. Is that what you want?

[EffieBlack]

77. Where in my post did I "bash Bernie?"

Please be specific.

[mudstump]

74. If you have to start your post with...

"Let me preface this by saying this is in no way an attack on - or even a criticism of - Bernie Sanders or a diminishment of his civil rights activism in the 1960s or an effort to "refight the primaries."

It's most likely a bash Bernie and his supporters thread.

[EffieBlack]

76. Not at all - I have to preface my post with such verbiage to try to prevent the alert-mongers and

Last edited Mon Apr 9, 2018, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

the "HOW DARE YOU CALL BERNIE A RACIST!" crowd from trying to shut down the discussion before it even begins.

[Caliman73]

93. Or not.

I supported Bernie in the primaries, but I can certainly see that he has a blind spot on dealing with the history of racism in this country. Funny thing is that two relatively influential African American hosts in radio were mentioning what Effie has stated repeatedly in her posts, Mark Thompson and Karen Hunter tried to get a dialogue going with Bernie and his staff during the primaries and he never reached out to them and their audience, whereas before the election he had a spot carved out with Thom Hartmann.


We are not a color blind society. Efforts to improve the lives of Black and Brown people inevitably help White people, but the reverse is not true. Until the day when systemic and institutional racial bias are eliminated, politicians need to understand that and make that an explicit part of their campaign as progressives.

[Cha]

99. right.. No one must have any criticism of BS at

all.

Too bad, she gave him praise.. but that goes Whoose!

[EffieBlack]

103. What can you do, Cha?

[Cha]

106. Nothing will satisfy

them except total commitment to BS and not a whiff of anything that shows his record of history.

Not gonna happen.

[EffieBlack]

109. Oh, well ...

[betsuni]

87. K&R

[greatauntoftriplets]

89. Awesome post, Effie.

[lunamagica]

91. Another great post. Effie.

[Cha]

95. Thank you, Effie Black

[karynnj]

102. Imagine that Hillary Clinton took a year of attending Wellesley to work to desegregate

Boston. Boston when Hillary was in college in the suburbs, was a very racially segregated city. Areas of Boston like Southie and the ethnic areas of Chicago were intensely racist and poor. Something tells me that this would have been a crowning part of your praise for Clinton - included with her work after law school for Marion Wright Edelman. THAT part of Clinton's biography impressed me - especially coming from where she did - a relatively wealthy Republican suburb northwest of Chicago. Knowing Chicago, Sanders standing up to the Chicago police to work on CPS desegregation does too. (I grew up in NW Indiana about 20 miles from Chicago.)

One error in your post was to equate Sanders' political action to attending a march or protesting. It was a much deeper, longer term commitment. Were you old enough to watch Mayor Daley. who ruled Chicago, at the 1968 convention? While you are correct that no one who was white raced the risk that blacks raced through much of the country. But, Sanders was no rich son of a powerful man. He was the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled anti semitism in Europe, who was smart enough to get a scholarship to the University of Chicago.

I know you have your problems with Sanders. Yet, you minimize this part of his background and then erect a strawman that he wanted praise from blacks for this. In fact, it was never a part of his biography he spoke of often. No one ever said he was a hero of the civil rights movement - many many other people did far more at far greater risk. However, that does not diminish that Sanders really did put himself on the line far more than almost any white politician I have read of. This came out of his Jewish sense of Tikkun Olam.

Your comment on his votes is also weird as you say it does not matter that they were scored by the NAACP as 100% correct --because , you say, - so are almost all Democrats. Why then even bring them up. The problem is that you have written a huge number of threads all trashing Bernie. I get it that you dislike him. However, this is OVERKILL.

[emulatorloo]

130. Imagine supporting Bernie without engaging in Trumpian Whataboutisms n/t

[karynnj]

136. I am not supporting Bernie

My point was simple. What he did as a young man was real and substantial and had it been done by someone the OP or you liked, it would not be questioned.

However, it alone, does not mean he should be elected to anything.

Your attack that it is Trumpian is bizarre.

[emulatorloo]

138. It is Trumpian because Trump answers all criticisms with but What About Hillary?

But you know that already.

Nothing “bizarre” about my “attack” at all.

Your post = “but What About Hillary?” It is all there in black and white.

You are capable of much more.

How about saying positive things about Senator Bernie Sanders and his accomplishments (who I do like but who I no longer feel is presidential material) rather than trying to deflect and distract by engaging in whataboutisms.

[karynnj]

142. You miss I praised HRC, unlike Trump, who never does

My point is that the SAME actions Bernie did in the 1969s would have been praised by both you and the OP if they were in someone else's biography.

I chose HRC because she is one of the few people I know the OP was very supportive of.

[EffieBlack]

139. Did you actually read the OP?

If so, please reference the specific point or points where I in any way questioned what Bernie did in the civil rights movement.

Was it here?

First, I think it's great that Bernie Sanders and tens of thousands of other young white college students participated in civil rights protests across the country during the 1960s. They truly made a difference, whatever their contribution.

No, not there.


Or here?

Bernie Sanders' participation was admirable and laudable and appreciated.

Nope.

Or here?

The benefit of this type of protest did not come in the suffering or brutality that many black and white protesters endured elsewhere, but in showing the country the power and numbers behind the movement. And they were very important and very effective.

Can’t find it in there.

Or here?

I have nothing but praise for what Bernie did in 1963. He was a small part of something very important. He did the right thing. He could have stayed in his comfy dorm room, but he went out, inconvenienced himself, and lent himself to the fight. He was on the right side of history.

Nowhere in there, either

Well, damn. I can’t find it anywhere.

So, please give me a hand and point it out so I can understand what you’re talking about.

[karynnj]

141. Your condescension is obvious and I refuse to play your game

In other posts, you make yourself clear when you speak of meager record.

So, goodbye.

[EffieBlack]

144. In other words, you made a claim about me you can't back up.

Ok. Bye.

[karynnj]

147. No anyone reading your repeated attacks stating that I

am "woefully informed" and attacking my intelligence and knowlege can be read by others. In addition, you constantly misquote and move goal posts in your own favor.

You have in many threads here completely minimized what Sanders did in the 1960s. You compared it to people who attended one, safe, gigantic rally. Given your expertise on the civil rights movement, I assume you know that northern cities like Chicago were essentially segregated by neighborhoods each with distinct ethnic characteristics. Standing up against Mayor Daley, in his prime, was NOT like joining a rally. I grew up nearby in Lake County, Indiana.

I have problems with Bernie on some economic policy issues. I also was not enthusiastic about Clinton in the primaries, though I actively supported her in the general election.

[EffieBlack]

137. "Sanders really did put himself on the line far more than almost any white politician I have read of

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2018, 09:51 AM - Edit history (2)

You sure about that?

It’s interesting that in the same paragraph you say, “No one said he was a hero of the civil rights movement,” and then in the very next sentence, you claim that he “really did put himself on the line far more than almost any white politician I have read of.”

So, he wasn’t a hero, but he did do more than any other white politician?

You should do some more reading before you try to convince people who know better that Bernie risked more for civil rights than any other white politician - because saying this makes you sound star struck and ill-informed.

[karynnj]

140. You are incredidably articulate, therefore I assume

you are completely aware that changing almost any white politicians to ANY OTHER white white politician. It makes a big difference.

Name several white person in the Congress or Senate from the last two decades did more? That likely adds up to 1000 people, YOUR misquote of my words requires listing only one to disprove what I said. My statement is less precise, but to me would mean he is in the top 100.

What he did was far more than an average liberal white man or woman in that time frame did.

[EffieBlack]

143. "What he did was far more than an average liberal white man or woman in that time frame did"

As I said, you are woefully ill-informed.

Certainly, Bernie did more 55 years ago than the white liberals who didn’t do anything. I haven’t done a calculation of how many white liberals participated - and, I’m sure, neither have you - so I can't say whether he did more than MOST white liberals of that time - and neither can you.

But among those white liberals who did participate in the movement during that time, Bernie’s participation was very limited, minimal and temporary and came with very little risk. Again, that’s not a criticism - it’s good that he participated - but that’s just a fact. And in my experience, most white liberals who participated during that time - including those who worked harder, longer and at much greater risk to their education, careers, status, relationships, safety and lives than Bernie did - don’t wear their participation as a lifetime civil rights merit badge.

I’m sure you’re well-meaning, but here’s the problem: when someone you revere is a part, however small, of something you know little about, and that person is one of the only references or connections you have to that thing, there can be a tendency to exaggerate that person’s role vis-a-vis other people into something far beyond what he or she actually did.

Your conclusion is understandable, but it’s still very inaccurate.

If you’re truly interested in the movement beyond how it can be framed to advance Bernie Sanders, I urge you to do some research to learn more about it before trying to characterize it or the nature and content of anyone’s involvement therein.

One good starting point is Taylor Branch’s “Parting the Waters” trilogy.

[karynnj]

145. Again, i said white liberal POLITICIANS

I have read some of Branch's work and saw him speak in 2008 about the civil rights movement with Jesse Jackson. I KNOW there were some liberal white activists who risked their lives all over the south. Those people are the heroes, something I specifically said Sanders was not.

However YOU have moved far from some of your posts equating Sanders' activism with that of people who attended a protest rally. In the OP, you do give him more credit than in other posts where you even mentioned Charleton Heston. You have STILL not countered that few white politicians did more. That word is important. Few people, who wanted political careers in the future, took that amount of time and the likelihood of arrest. Here, it is true, that he, unlike many top politicians, did not see himself as someone who would run for office.

I was in junior high and high school during the height of the civil rights movement. I saw what was reported on the network news and in newspapers and magazines. The media was much better then and my parents subscribed to 3 newspapers and at least 3 news magazines.

I assure you that I am well informed and well read on many subjects.

[EffieBlack]

146. No, that's NOT what you said.

You said, "What he did was far more than an average liberal white man or woman in that time frame did."

My point stands.

And I'm sure you are well-informed on many topics. But reading newspapers and watching the nightly news as a teenager during the civil rights movement does not equate to being well-informed about it - certainly not enough to lecture people about the dynamics, demographics and activities of something as varied, complex and intricate as the modern day civil rights movement.

[karynnj]

148. It is exactly what I said in post 102

The post that started this sub thread. That post is there and it can be seen.

What you quote is a later post. In that post, I made another accurate statement. That statement, not limited to people who become politicians is that he did more than the AVERAGE liberal man or woman in that time frame. Note I lower the bar when I expanded the group I was speaking of.



Your point dies.

In addition, everything I said in my posts was on the 1960s civil rights movement. Nor did I claim to be an expert ... that was you.

[EffieBlack]

149. I wasn't responding to Post 102. I was responding to the post I responded to

that contained the specific statement that I referenced and responded to.

But, whatever.

[karynnj]

150. However that is not true

You keep the higher threshold - almost any -of the first statement AND the description of the group spoken of from the first.

You can challenger either statement, but not take one part of each.

[Jspur]

110. I don't care that the Black Community

is not down with Bernie. As an Indian American who was born in America I'm used to being the invisible minority that politicians don't pander to. So for me it's hard for me to have empathy towards black people who keep complaining that Bernie hasn't done enough for their community. I just don't care.

[Cha]

111. That's on you.. I do care. It's not that

he hasn't done "enough".. it's his record of history regarding the African Americans.

[EffieBlack]

112. That, along with his certainty that his meager record entitles him to gratitude,

reverence and kid glove treatment.

[Cha]

114. Exactly, Effie

[Jspur]

115. Elaborate on

his record what is it about his record regarding the black community that bothers you?

[Cha]

117. Two Wrongs don't make it right.. I care about the Native Amercians

too, I was grateful for all President Obama did for our Native People.

Anyone who's been around here for the last 3 years knows what I'm talking about.

It's against the rules to elaborate further.

[mcar]

120. And he and his supporters claim

that he has done so much, that he's a civil rights icon, and AAs should be happy with that.

[EffieBlack]

127. Not just happy, but grateful and - unless we're offering praise and thanks - silent.

[EffieBlack]

122. Empathy is the ability to understand he feelings of others

It’s not a commodity or reward to bestow on others if you find them to be deserving or to withhold if you believe you’re not getting enough of it from someone else as if this were all a zero sum game. You either have it or you don’t. It sounds like you don’t, which is unfortunate.

[JCanete]

113. fair points. nt

[NCTraveler]

121. The way a photo of Sanders was thrown at me yesterday as some great point.

Made me think that Robert Byrd was wearing a white sheet around those days and ended up having a more positive impact on civil rights throughout his career than Sanders. Pretty offensive the way it is thrown out. Yet there are things Sanders did years after that which we cannot speak of and are written off as youthful indiscretions.

[EffieBlack]

126. That's why I wrote the OP

I grew weary of trying to explain after the fact why the photo was beside the point - so I figured I'd explain it in depth on the front end before anyone does it again.

[MaryMagdaline]

131. Excellent post. It's relevant to more people than just Bernie

In my case, the shoe fits. Black people owe us nothing. The truth is the non-violent and disciplined manner in which the Civil Rights Movement was run, saved our country from civil war and lifted the rights of white people, especially white women. The fact that I have benefitted more from the civil rights movement than black Americans is really disconcerting. Black people bore the brunt of violence and still do. We don't get a black card. We just don't. Haven't earned it, and black people are too busy trying to survive to have to indulge our hero fantasies. Be an ally if you can. We're not the generals and hardly ever the foot soldiers.

[EffieBlack]

134. Thank you for getting it and for explaining it so well

Woke ...

[MaryMagdaline]

135. Thank you. I think PropaneJane knocked some sense into me