Nina Turner Blasts Audience From Black Women's Forum for Booing Senator's MLK Comments

[EffieBlack]

125. Unfortunately, this bears repeating ... Again

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

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

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210468176