White ally here asking for an opinion on the BLM/Sanders protests.

[shaayecanaan]

6. I don't think that this post will get many replies

and mine may not be worth much to you (not Black but Arab, nor am I even American).

Sanders, and most of his supporters, believe in the primacy of economic inequality. Conversely, BLM believes that the most pressing issue is racial equality. This is fundamentally a clash of narratives, and it really is a zero-sum game. Sanders is not about to downgrade economic inequality, indeed he owes his campaign to the fact that he is the only candidate to have made it his main pitch. Likewise, BLM are not about to stop focusing on racial inequality.

It doesn't sound like those two objectives are in conflict, but they are. Even if you agree with both there is still the argument of which is to be considered more important or urgent. Ideally it might be possible to agree to give them both equal billing, but that is a delicate balancing act requiring trust and mutual good faith. Good luck finding those anywhere in the American body politic at the moment.

More fundamentally, the politics of class is potentially disruptive for both major parties. It's possible, although not likely, that focusing on economics would attract some of the white working class that have voted Republican a long time. Its even possible that it may find support amongst some Black voters - remember that Roosevelt got 75% of the Black vote in 1936 by appealing to their hip pockets, even though there was not much daylight between him and the Republicans on race.

Hillary Clinton is no threat to anyone's narrative. She is a largely blank, neoliberal canvas upon which one can project an image of one's own pleasing - literally in this campaign season, as she has said so very little of any substance and has refused to take questions from anyone. More importantly, she is likely to be the Democratic nominee, and Sanders is not. This means that one can trounce Sanders and O'Malley until the cows come home, and its still not going to hurt your political prospects whether as an activist or an organiser or whatever. Or to put it another way:-

High ranking Democrats who hand out money, whether through partisan campaigns or to ostensibly nonpartisan and/or nonprofit organizations are always on the lookout for new activist blood with catchy new hooks, for activists who'll say the things they will not say in the effort to turn out the black masses for that Big Black Vote. So if you're a black activist at NetRoots you really NEED to stand out, to get noticed by the people who can give you fellowships, grants, jobs, funding of all kinds, and a career.

Since Hillary is the all but inevitable Democratic nominee, confronting two minor white male candidates, demanding they “say her name” and come up with solutions that address white supremacy, structural racism and the runaway police state is pretty much a foolproof strategy to get noticed, and as Hillary did not attend NetRoots, they got to do it without antagonizing the Clinton camp. Hillary wisely covered her own ass by releasing a tweet that unequivocally said “black lives DO matter.”

But all in all, the NetRootsNation confrontation wasn't the stirring of black women activists “taking their rightful place at the front of the progressive movement,” as one breathless tweet called it. It didn't tell us anything we didn't know about O'Malley or Sanders, or about hypocritical Hillary.

It was about flying the #BlackLivesMatter flag to jockey for positions inside the machinery that is the Democratic party and its affiliates.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/netroots-nation-confrontation

We live under a regime now that is capable simultaneously of including black people and Latinos, even celebrating that inclusion as a fulfillment of democracy, while excluding poor people without a whimper of opposition. Of course, those most visible in the excluded class are disproportionately black and Latino, and that fact gives the lie to the celebration. Or does it really? From the standpoint of a neoliberal ideal of equality, in which classification by race, gender, sexual orientation or any other recognized ascriptive status (that is, status based on what one allegedly is rather than what one does) does not impose explicit, intrinsic or necessary limitations on one’s participation and aspirations in the society, this celebration of inclusion of blacks, Latinos and others is warranted.

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Antiracism.html