Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Rebkeh
Rebkeh's Journal
Rebkeh's Journal
April 26, 2016
Let's go, Bernsters!
Let's do this Pennsylvania, Maryland and Rhode Island.
You too Conneticut and Delaware!!
VOTE!!
April 25, 2016
Cross post from GE
I put a note to Bernie people in it but since some of you won't see the OP...
About (fill in the blank) Privilege
We have to specify. Wealth privilege, income privilege, educational privilege, class, gender, sexuality and yes, racial privilege. All of these are not necessarily interchangeable, they share many characteristics in the details, but they are, in essence, separate things.
Privilege is based on how much the system and the wider culture favors you and the groups you belong to.
We all have something that puts us at an advantage, and we all have something that puts us at a disadvantage. It is not a mark against one’s character to have either one, it’s just the way the dice rolled. There’s no judgment to it, it just is what it is.
White privilege is based on how much the system and culture favor you solely because you are white. Wealth and class privilege share a Venn diagram there - but are not the same thing. To compare class privilege to white privilege is to compare apples to oranges .
A poor or middle class white man has gender privilege compared to a rich white woman, but he does not have economic privilege compared to her. In that case, the script is flipped. Both are at a disadvantage in one way or the other, but the two people are not equalized according to the way political and cultural power are granted. They do not receive equal treatment from society nor have equal value according to our wider system.
The educated have privilege compared to the uneducated. Natural born citizens have privilege compared to immigrants and naturalized citizens. Cis people have it compared to transgendered people, men to women, heterosexual to LGBTQ, etc. Even language and literacy are privileges people have compared to some others.
These are verifiable facts. Where there is inequality, there is privilege. Leveling the field means the privileged person, to some degree, will have to accept what feels like a “loss” (*not an actual loss).
*Sexism hurts men, racism hurts whites, poverty hurts the rich, and so on – so they are invested in equality too, or should be.
If a privileged person does not come to terms with this “loss,” he or she is implicitly supporting inequality. It’s that simple. 1%ers have to accept their privilege or there will never be equality – we understand this instinctively. It’s why pandering will never work, they have to admit there is a problem and that they benefit from it – even if it’s simply from a lucky hand dealt from a stacked deck. It's why we have no problem with wealthy progressives, it's not the money, it's the attitude and how they use their power.
POC instinctively understand the same dynamic in regards to race and color. It’s pure luck that some were born white in America, and that’s okay.
Inequality comes in many forms but racial inequality is the worst, and the most pressing form because a rich white person has wealth privilege compared to a middle class white person, just as he or she has white privilege by comparison to a black person. The wealthy white person has privilege compared to both of them. Because of that, it stands to reason that there be an alliance to gain political equality for poc and middle class/poor whites. If we are honest, that alliance requires acceptance and acknowledgment of white privilege. It is non-negotiable. You can reject that it exists, but then you undermine your fight against income inequality.
Together means together, on just terms, not white ones.
This is the most urgent and immediate obstacle between a just and equal society and the society we have now. White progressives have to grapple with racism. Not as much with race, per se, but racism.
note to Bernie folks – as far as I can tell, one of the reasons a lot of black people don’t trust Bernie and the revolution is because they have yet to be convinced that white progressives will stand up for them too – on their terms – with no pandering. It has to be authentic, much like we expect our leaders to be. A lot of black people gave up on a multi-racial alliance long ago. I have not. Hillary is focused on policy, incremental change from within the system, which works slowly, but it does work in targeted ways. As much as we see otherwise, she is perceived as a safer bet, even if she is problematic. People know she is problematic, but it is in her interest to pander to and appease black people because black votes matter and the poc community can come to be a real force, especially with black women on board.
On a final and personal note, I know that race isn’t real. That has been long established and black people are all too aware, there is no need to keep explaining it to us. (Not that everyone does but a lot of white people do)
What the “We are all one people” sentiment gets wrong is that it doesn’t stop bullets targeted at us. It does not pay the bills. It does nothing, NOTHING, to change racist policy and the racism that’s baked in the cake. Tackling racism has to come from two fronts, the cultural and political, what unity without race does is disregard the need for political change.
For what it’s worth, my personal belief is that “we are all one people, and race isn’t real” is the truth. I live by it daily, it informs my life on every level. But racism is part of my daily as well, it’s a real and present danger when I am navigating this thing called life. I do not have a choice but to deal with racism, it’s not something I get to ignore. I get it, identity is an illusion. But that illusion is not bullet proof and until people like me can stop dodging bullets, waxing poetic to understand illusions is a distraction from actual issues. I save that for “church.” My church. We of this global consciousness mindset are coming to understand race on a relational level, we are making headway on the cultural part of racism. But the political part demands equal attention. One hand washes the other.
We all have something that puts us at an advantage, and we all have something that puts us at a disadvantage. It is not a mark against one’s character to have either one, it’s just the way the dice rolled. There’s no judgment to it, it just is what it is.
White privilege is based on how much the system and culture favor you solely because you are white. Wealth and class privilege share a Venn diagram there - but are not the same thing. To compare class privilege to white privilege is to compare apples to oranges .
A poor or middle class white man has gender privilege compared to a rich white woman, but he does not have economic privilege compared to her. In that case, the script is flipped. Both are at a disadvantage in one way or the other, but the two people are not equalized according to the way political and cultural power are granted. They do not receive equal treatment from society nor have equal value according to our wider system.
The educated have privilege compared to the uneducated. Natural born citizens have privilege compared to immigrants and naturalized citizens. Cis people have it compared to transgendered people, men to women, heterosexual to LGBTQ, etc. Even language and literacy are privileges people have compared to some others.
These are verifiable facts. Where there is inequality, there is privilege. Leveling the field means the privileged person, to some degree, will have to accept what feels like a “loss” (*not an actual loss).
*Sexism hurts men, racism hurts whites, poverty hurts the rich, and so on – so they are invested in equality too, or should be.
If a privileged person does not come to terms with this “loss,” he or she is implicitly supporting inequality. It’s that simple. 1%ers have to accept their privilege or there will never be equality – we understand this instinctively. It’s why pandering will never work, they have to admit there is a problem and that they benefit from it – even if it’s simply from a lucky hand dealt from a stacked deck. It's why we have no problem with wealthy progressives, it's not the money, it's the attitude and how they use their power.
POC instinctively understand the same dynamic in regards to race and color. It’s pure luck that some were born white in America, and that’s okay.
Inequality comes in many forms but racial inequality is the worst, and the most pressing form because a rich white person has wealth privilege compared to a middle class white person, just as he or she has white privilege by comparison to a black person. The wealthy white person has privilege compared to both of them. Because of that, it stands to reason that there be an alliance to gain political equality for poc and middle class/poor whites. If we are honest, that alliance requires acceptance and acknowledgment of white privilege. It is non-negotiable. You can reject that it exists, but then you undermine your fight against income inequality.
Together means together, on just terms, not white ones.
This is the most urgent and immediate obstacle between a just and equal society and the society we have now. White progressives have to grapple with racism. Not as much with race, per se, but racism.
note to Bernie folks – as far as I can tell, one of the reasons a lot of black people don’t trust Bernie and the revolution is because they have yet to be convinced that white progressives will stand up for them too – on their terms – with no pandering. It has to be authentic, much like we expect our leaders to be. A lot of black people gave up on a multi-racial alliance long ago. I have not. Hillary is focused on policy, incremental change from within the system, which works slowly, but it does work in targeted ways. As much as we see otherwise, she is perceived as a safer bet, even if she is problematic. People know she is problematic, but it is in her interest to pander to and appease black people because black votes matter and the poc community can come to be a real force, especially with black women on board.
On a final and personal note, I know that race isn’t real. That has been long established and black people are all too aware, there is no need to keep explaining it to us. (Not that everyone does but a lot of white people do)
What the “We are all one people” sentiment gets wrong is that it doesn’t stop bullets targeted at us. It does not pay the bills. It does nothing, NOTHING, to change racist policy and the racism that’s baked in the cake. Tackling racism has to come from two fronts, the cultural and political, what unity without race does is disregard the need for political change.
For what it’s worth, my personal belief is that “we are all one people, and race isn’t real” is the truth. I live by it daily, it informs my life on every level. But racism is part of my daily as well, it’s a real and present danger when I am navigating this thing called life. I do not have a choice but to deal with racism, it’s not something I get to ignore. I get it, identity is an illusion. But that illusion is not bullet proof and until people like me can stop dodging bullets, waxing poetic to understand illusions is a distraction from actual issues. I save that for “church.” My church. We of this global consciousness mindset are coming to understand race on a relational level, we are making headway on the cultural part of racism. But the political part demands equal attention. One hand washes the other.
April 25, 2016
About (fill in the blank) Privilege
We have to specify. Wealth privilege, income privilege, educational privilege, class, gender, sexuality and yes, racial privilege. All of these are not necessarily interchangeable, they share many characteristics in the details, but they are, in essence, separate things.
Privilege is based on how much the system and the wider culture favors you and the groups you belong to.
We all have something that puts us at an advantage, and we all have something that puts us at a disadvantage. It is not a mark against one’s character to have either one, it’s just the way the dice rolled. There’s no judgment to it, it just is what it is.
White privilege is based on how much the system and culture favor you solely because you are white. Wealth and class privilege share a Venn diagram there - but are not the same thing. To compare class privilege to white privilege is to compare apples to oranges .
A poor or middle class white man has gender privilege compared to a rich white woman, but he does not have economic privilege compared to her. In that case, the script is flipped. Both are at a disadvantage in one way or the other, but the two people are not equalized according to the way political and cultural power are granted. They do not receive equal treatment from society nor have equal value according to our wider system.
The educated have privilege compared to the uneducated. Natural born citizens have privilege compared to immigrants and naturalized citizens. Cis people have it compared to transgendered people, men to women, heterosexual to LGBTQ, etc. Even language and literacy are privileges people have compared to some others.
These are verifiable facts. Where there is inequality, there is privilege. Leveling the field means the privileged person, to some degree, will have to accept what feels like a “loss” (*not an actual loss).
*Sexism hurts men, racism hurts whites, poverty hurts the rich, and so on – so they are invested in equality too, or should be.
If a privileged person does not come to terms with this “loss,” he or she is implicitly supporting inequality. It’s that simple. 1%ers have to accept their privilege or there will never be equality – we understand this instinctively. It’s why pandering will never work, they have to admit there is a problem and that they benefit from it – even if it’s simply from a lucky hand dealt from a stacked deck. It's why we have no problem with wealthy progressives, it's not the money, it's the attitude and how they use their power.
POC instinctively understand the same dynamic in regards to race and color. It’s pure luck that some were born white in America, and that’s okay.
Inequality comes in many forms but racial inequality is the worst, and the most pressing form because a rich white person has wealth privilege compared to a middle class white person, just as he or she has white privilege by comparison to a black person. The wealthy white person has privilege compared to both of them. Because of that, it stands to reason that there be an alliance to gain political equality for poc and middle class/poor whites. If we are honest, that alliance requires acceptance and acknowledgment of white privilege. It is non-negotiable. You can reject that it exists, but then you undermine your fight against income inequality.
Together means together, on just terms, not white ones.
This is the most urgent and immediate obstacle between a just and equal society and the society we have now. White progressives have to grapple with racism. Not as much with race, per se, but racism.
note to Bernie folks – as far as I can tell, one of the reasons a lot of black people don’t trust Bernie and the revolution is because they have yet to be convinced that white progressives will stand up for them too – on their terms – with no pandering. It has to be authentic, much like we expect our leaders to be. A lot of black people gave up on a multi-racial alliance long ago. I have not. Hillary is focused on policy, incremental change from within the system, which works slowly, but it does work in targeted ways. As much as we see otherwise, she is perceived as a safer bet, even if she is problematic. People know she is problematic, but it is in her interest to pander to and appease black people because black votes matter and the poc community can come to be a real force, especially with black women on board.
On a final and personal note, I know that race isn’t real. That has been long established and black people are all too aware, there is no need to keep explaining it to us. (Not that everyone does but a lot of white people do)
What the “We are all one people” sentiment gets wrong is that it doesn’t stop bullets targeted at us. It does not pay the bills. It does nothing, NOTHING, to change racist policy and the racism that’s baked in the cake. Tackling racism has to come from two fronts, the cultural and political, what unity without race does is disregard the need for political change.
For what it’s worth, my personal belief is that “we are all one people, and race isn’t real” is the truth. I live by it daily, it informs my life on every level. But racism is part of my daily as well, it’s a real and present danger when I am navigating this thing called life. I do not have a choice but to deal with racism, it’s not something I get to ignore. I get it, identity is an illusion. But that illusion is not bullet proof and until people like me can stop dodging bullets, waxing poetic to understand illusions is a distraction from actual issues. I save that for “church.” My church. We of this global consciousness mindset are coming to understand race on a relational level, we are making headway on the cultural part of racism. But the political part demands equal attention. One hand washes the other.
We all have something that puts us at an advantage, and we all have something that puts us at a disadvantage. It is not a mark against one’s character to have either one, it’s just the way the dice rolled. There’s no judgment to it, it just is what it is.
White privilege is based on how much the system and culture favor you solely because you are white. Wealth and class privilege share a Venn diagram there - but are not the same thing. To compare class privilege to white privilege is to compare apples to oranges .
A poor or middle class white man has gender privilege compared to a rich white woman, but he does not have economic privilege compared to her. In that case, the script is flipped. Both are at a disadvantage in one way or the other, but the two people are not equalized according to the way political and cultural power are granted. They do not receive equal treatment from society nor have equal value according to our wider system.
The educated have privilege compared to the uneducated. Natural born citizens have privilege compared to immigrants and naturalized citizens. Cis people have it compared to transgendered people, men to women, heterosexual to LGBTQ, etc. Even language and literacy are privileges people have compared to some others.
These are verifiable facts. Where there is inequality, there is privilege. Leveling the field means the privileged person, to some degree, will have to accept what feels like a “loss” (*not an actual loss).
*Sexism hurts men, racism hurts whites, poverty hurts the rich, and so on – so they are invested in equality too, or should be.
If a privileged person does not come to terms with this “loss,” he or she is implicitly supporting inequality. It’s that simple. 1%ers have to accept their privilege or there will never be equality – we understand this instinctively. It’s why pandering will never work, they have to admit there is a problem and that they benefit from it – even if it’s simply from a lucky hand dealt from a stacked deck. It's why we have no problem with wealthy progressives, it's not the money, it's the attitude and how they use their power.
POC instinctively understand the same dynamic in regards to race and color. It’s pure luck that some were born white in America, and that’s okay.
Inequality comes in many forms but racial inequality is the worst, and the most pressing form because a rich white person has wealth privilege compared to a middle class white person, just as he or she has white privilege by comparison to a black person. The wealthy white person has privilege compared to both of them. Because of that, it stands to reason that there be an alliance to gain political equality for poc and middle class/poor whites. If we are honest, that alliance requires acceptance and acknowledgment of white privilege. It is non-negotiable. You can reject that it exists, but then you undermine your fight against income inequality.
Together means together, on just terms, not white ones.
This is the most urgent and immediate obstacle between a just and equal society and the society we have now. White progressives have to grapple with racism. Not as much with race, per se, but racism.
note to Bernie folks – as far as I can tell, one of the reasons a lot of black people don’t trust Bernie and the revolution is because they have yet to be convinced that white progressives will stand up for them too – on their terms – with no pandering. It has to be authentic, much like we expect our leaders to be. A lot of black people gave up on a multi-racial alliance long ago. I have not. Hillary is focused on policy, incremental change from within the system, which works slowly, but it does work in targeted ways. As much as we see otherwise, she is perceived as a safer bet, even if she is problematic. People know she is problematic, but it is in her interest to pander to and appease black people because black votes matter and the poc community can come to be a real force, especially with black women on board.
On a final and personal note, I know that race isn’t real. That has been long established and black people are all too aware, there is no need to keep explaining it to us. (Not that everyone does but a lot of white people do)
What the “We are all one people” sentiment gets wrong is that it doesn’t stop bullets targeted at us. It does not pay the bills. It does nothing, NOTHING, to change racist policy and the racism that’s baked in the cake. Tackling racism has to come from two fronts, the cultural and political, what unity without race does is disregard the need for political change.
For what it’s worth, my personal belief is that “we are all one people, and race isn’t real” is the truth. I live by it daily, it informs my life on every level. But racism is part of my daily as well, it’s a real and present danger when I am navigating this thing called life. I do not have a choice but to deal with racism, it’s not something I get to ignore. I get it, identity is an illusion. But that illusion is not bullet proof and until people like me can stop dodging bullets, waxing poetic to understand illusions is a distraction from actual issues. I save that for “church.” My church. We of this global consciousness mindset are coming to understand race on a relational level, we are making headway on the cultural part of racism. But the political part demands equal attention. One hand washes the other.
April 24, 2016
Give this a read
Think about the tactics they are using now.
http://www.poynter.org/2012/fear-undermines-an-informed-citizenry-as-media-struggles-with-attention-economy/192509/
God forbid we talk about the issues.
April 23, 2016
Check your default setting for your journals
Mine was changed by someone other than me two weeks ago.
April 23, 2016
First, why it is not racist:
To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.
But hold on.
We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.
Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.
Now, as to why it is racist…
The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.
Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.
Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).
As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.
Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.
There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.
At least, that how it appears to me.
From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.
I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813
Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969
Is the Stockholm Syndrome Claim Racist?
~~ Admins, I wasn't sure if this was better in GD or GD-P so I posted in both. I will delete the inappropriate one if asked.~~
Yes. And No
I had hoped this issue would die and fade away quietly in DU, mainly because it does more harm than good. I have stayed out of the fray mostly because my conflicted take on it is so nuanced, it would get lost in the shuffle anyway. I saw no benefit to wading into the muck.
But, lo and behold – somebody resurrected it earlier this week. On the one hand, it’s troll fuel, used as bait to incite discord and it’s an excellent distraction from the issues. On the other hand, it’s a legitimate issue in need of discussion. I suppose it’s not going to go away until we work it out, so here’s hoping I can help put it to rest.
If a conversation follows from this OP, and it goes destructive, as opposed to constructive, I will either ask to have the thread locked or delete it altogether. I will not be party to yet another source of negativity and divisiveness at DU, there is enough of that already without my contribution. The issue has been used as a football by both sides, neither one fully comprehending what I see the issue to actually be about.
First, why it is not racist:
To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.
But hold on.
We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.
Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.
Now, as to why it is racist…
The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.
Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.
Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).
As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.
Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.
There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.
Some Bernie supporters see the same cognitive dissonance we all know from the republicans, some black Bernie supporters see a sick and ironic use of race as a cudgel to divide and conquer, and some black Clinton supporters see abject arrogance and confirmation of the Bernie Bro stereotype.
At least, that how it appears to me.
From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.
I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813
Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969
April 23, 2016
A question about Journals
I have always kept my default setting for every post to post to my journal, I wouldn't have it any other way - for the sake of transparency. Today I noticed that none of my posts since April 10 have been saved, that's almost two weeks of posts! Wtf?
My question is if this is unusual, is there a limited capacity for our journals? If so, how many posts? If no limit of capacity, has this happened to anyone else? Have you had some of your journal entries purged?
I didn't see any anything about it in the 'Ask the Admins' forum. I will ask but I thought I'd find out from you guys first.
April 23, 2016
First, why it is not racist:
To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.
But hold on.
We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.
Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.
Now, as to why it is racist…
The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.
Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.
Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).
As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.
Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.
There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.
At least, that how it appears to me.
From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.
I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813
Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969
Since some of you don't read GD - about the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing
Is the Stockholm Syndrome claim racist?
Yes. And No
I had hoped this issue would die and fade away quietly in DU, mainly because it does more harm than good. I have stayed out of the fray mostly because my conflicted take on it is so nuanced, it would get lost in the shuffle anyway. I saw no benefit to wading into the muck.
But, lo and behold – somebody resurrected it earlier this week. On the one hand, it’s troll fuel, used as bait to incite discord and it’s an excellent distraction from the issues. On the other hand, it’s a legitimate issue in need of discussion. I suppose it’s not going to go away until we work it out, so here’s hoping I can help put it to rest.
If a conversation follows from this OP, and it goes destructive, as opposed to constructive, I will either ask to have the thread locked or delete it altogether. I will not be party to yet another source of negativity and divisiveness at DU, there is enough of that already without my contribution. The issue has been used as a football by both sides, neither one fully comprehending what I see the issue to actually be about.
First, why it is not racist:
To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.
But hold on.
We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.
Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.
Now, as to why it is racist…
The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.
Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.
Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).
As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.
Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.
There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.
Some Bernie supporters see the same cognitive dissonance we all know from the republicans, some black Bernie supporters see a sick and ironic use of race as a cudgel to divide and conquer, and some black Clinton supporters see abject arrogance and confirmation of the Bernie Bro stereotype.
At least, that how it appears to me.
From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.
I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813
Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969
April 23, 2016
First, why it is not racist:
To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.
But hold on.
We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.
Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.
Now, as to why it is racist…
The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.
Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.
Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).
As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.
Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.
There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.
At least, that how it appears to me.
From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.
I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813
Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969
Is the Stockholm Syndrome claim racist?
Yes. And No
I had hoped this issue would die and fade away quietly in DU, mainly because it does more harm than good. I have stayed out of the fray mostly because my conflicted take on it is so nuanced, it would get lost in the shuffle anyway. I saw no benefit to wading into the muck.
But, lo and behold – somebody resurrected it earlier this week. On the one hand, it’s troll fuel, used as bait to incite discord and it’s an excellent distraction from the issues. On the other hand, it’s a legitimate issue in need of discussion. I suppose it’s not going to go away until we work it out, so here’s hoping I can help put it to rest.
If a conversation follows from this OP, and it goes destructive, as opposed to constructive, I will either ask to have the thread locked or delete it altogether. I will not be party to yet another source of negativity and divisiveness at DU, there is enough of that already without my contribution. The issue has been used as a football by both sides, neither one fully comprehending what I see the issue to actually be about.
First, why it is not racist:
To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.
But hold on.
We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.
Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.
Now, as to why it is racist…
The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.
Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.
Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).
As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.
Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.
There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.
Some Bernie supporters see the same cognitive dissonance we all know from the republicans, some black Bernie supporters see a sick and ironic use of race as a cudgel to divide and conquer, and some black Clinton supporters see abject arrogance and confirmation of the Bernie Bro stereotype.
At least, that how it appears to me.
From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.
I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813
Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969
April 11, 2016
Petition for Missouri Bernsters
Sign the MoveOn petition to urge our superdelegates to vote with the will of the people.
http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/missouri-superdelegates-3
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHome country: USA
Member since: Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:59 AM
Number of posts: 2,450
