Why not call it by its real name?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bells, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. Bells Staff Member


    A primary reason this is so problematic is that it did not come out of the mouth of a right wing candidate.

    Instead, it came out of the mouth of Bernie Sanders. An audio of that part of the interview was posted on Twitter.

    Bernie Sanders has long been accused of a particular type of racism that skirts around it, dances on tiptoes by excusing and ignoring racist attitudes that would have people not vote for a black candidate because they are black and well, that can make some white folks uncomfortable.

    On Gillum, Sanders went on to say this:

    “I think he’s a fantastic politician in the best sense of the word,” Sanders said of Gillum. “He stuck to his guns in terms of a progressive agenda. I think he ran a great campaign. And he had to take on some of the most blatant and ugly racism that we have seen in many, many years. And yet he came within a whisker of winning.”

    Except, of course, he is black, as far as Sanders is concerned and white people who apparently are not racist, would feel uncomfortable voting for a black person. But this is apparently not racism.

    This racist dog whistling, this expectation that blatant racism be ignored, that people do not call it out for what it is, or are only willing to call it out when it's from the other side, which Sanders is more than willing to do.

    The article also notes that Sanders is considering another run in 2020. It would behoove Sanders to note that his refusal to call it by its real name, his continued dog whistling excuses, is why he was so unpopular with black voters to begin with.

    In the words of Keith Boykin:

    Not necessarily racist?

    Not wanting to vote for someone because they are black is kinda the very definition of racist.

    Come on, Bernie Sanders.

    Bernie Sanders has been trying to woo black voters this year, perhaps having realised that without them, he doesn't stand a chance. However many do not trust him and a large portion argue that his refusal to address the issues of racism in the South and across the US, his inability to understand that economic disparity in the South is deeply connected to racist attitudes, will result in minorities not trusting him.

    This latest issue won't help.

    So, what do people here think?

    If someone does not vote for a candidate because they are black, are they being racist?

    And should Sanders actually call it out instead of trying to excuse it by suggesting that these people aren't racist?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    To the one, at this point in American history, the need to assuage white identity neurosis, as such, is still demonstrable; to the other, well, right, there's a lot that goes here. One of the most obvious is whether Bernie freaking Sanders is the person to deliver such lines. And, yes, I am setting aside the obvious, for a moment, because there is another point to make about Sanders' manner of progressivism:

    • There was a time, for instance, shortly after the election, when some poseurs tried to convince Democratic voters that "economic justice" should be the focus, yet could not countenance the complication of parsing out justice or the simple question of sabotage: If the rising tide lifts all boats, what of the ones we're deliberately swamping, drilling, and otherwise sinking?

    ▸ It is worth recalling that time because we could also hear Sanders echoing right-wing denunciations of "identity politics"↗ in precisely a manner that empowers right-wing identity politics. Or, to recall Melissa Hillman↱ three months into the Trump presidency:

    When Sanders repeatedly declared that "identity politics" were a problem, he exposed a dangerous weakness in progressive political thought that remains unaddressed. We live intersectional lives, and these issues must be addressed intersectionally. To separate class from gender, race, sexuality, and ability in fighting for economic justice is to create a fiction that economic injustice is only driven by one kind social injustice—the kind that able-bodied cishet white men experience. It's a dangerous fiction that at its heart reinforces patriarchal white supremacy, and it's becoming all the more dangerous as we fight against an administration and its attendant political movement that wants nothing more than to roll back as many social justice gains as possible.

    (Boldface accent added)

    The intervening eighteen months have only highlighted, reinforced, and accentuated the point. Ultimately, the secret of Sanders' "socialism" is its "selfishness"; remember the bit with the gun vote, and he answered something about Vermont gun owners, and then there was a kerfuffle about whether any guns in New York came from Vermont? It's sort of an, Okay, if that's how it goes, moment, but I find it worrisome that he couldn't tell the difference. That is to say, he wasn't bullshitting us, right, so, yeah, I'm kind of worried at how badly he effed that up. Of course, if he was bullshitting people—and he is a career politician, after all, with decades in D.C.—it was worringly stupid. That is to say, flip a coin, it's still a botch.

    In that context, though, a politician whose appeal is entirely to individual self-interest is quite likely to concede such points white identity neuroticism. There are, of course, unpleasant truths under the sun about questions of human rights at the intersection of "identity politics", such as how justice and equality will piss off supremacism, but sometimes it's just not a particular person's job to assuage that distress.

    Nor am I anxious to account the assuaging argument; it has to do with displacing one's racism onto others, a kind of "way it is" surrender.

    If, say Ta-Nehisi Coates, Cornell West, and Maxwell Dixon want to sit down and hash it out about which whites are racist or not according to what hesitance to vote for which person of color, yeah, I'd probably pay close attention. It would be at least as enlightening as entertaining.

    But Bernie Sanders? While I don't know where this ranks compared the moaning about misogyny line, Hillman's assessment of Sanders' consequent supremacism—"driven by one kind social injustice—the kind that able-bodied cishet white men experience ... a dangerous fiction that at its heart reinforces patriarchal white supremacy"—seems rather quite apt.

    Which brings us back to a point set aside: The need to assuage white identity neurosis will not abate through coddling and cultivation. The thing is, we just saw what happens when Republicans control enough of government to enact their agenda, and now people are going to be tempted, once again, to coddle white supremacism in hopes of peeling a few votes. Time's supposed to be up for a lot more than sexual harassment, and it just doesn't seem so much to ask, when it comes to white identity neurosis, that if they're not racists, then maybe every now and then they could fail to (ahem!) "accidentally" make the point.


    Hillman, Melissa. "Why Women Are So Angry With Bernie Sanders". The Huffington Post. 24 April 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 8 November 2018. http://huff.to/2qd29KY

    (Edit: Correct citation.)
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    The walk back has begun:

    Sanders' spokesman insists those remarks were taken out of context. Speaking to NPR, Sanders said any votes Gillum or Abrams lost over their race were entirely due to what he called "racist" campaigns run by their Republican opponents.

    "There's no question that in Georgia and in Florida racism has reared its ugly head. And you have candidates who ran against Gillum and ran against Stacey Abrams who were racist and were doing everything they could to try to play whites against blacks," he said. "And that is an outrage, and we have got to continue doing everything that we can to fight all forms of racism."

    Except, he still ignores the giant elephant in the room. That being he believes that white people from the South will not feel comfortable voting for black candidates and that this apparently does not make them racist..

    The fact that he dismisses such blatant forms of racism is troubling. Then again, he has a history of ignoring the results of racism to begin with. So in a way, this should not be surprising.

    But like Tiassa, I have to wonder, how low are people willing to go to win?

    Should the left be appeasing to racists in the hope of pulling their votes, while ignoring the fact that a large portion of their voters are actually minorities? Should minorities continue to ignore their own plight and the causes of their economic disparity?

    Sander's comments shows that the left is still willing to bow down to white supremacists and this expectation that minorities just go along with it is despicable.

    As for Bernie Sanders, his continued attempts to walk this back, by claiming he was taken out of context (despite the audio clip clearly recording exactly what he said and it's still bad), that it was the GOP who ran racist campaigns.. And the latest is that voters were led by the racist campaigns..

    Because you know, if you don't want to vote for a black candidate because he or she is black, then that isn't racism. It's just everyone else's racism.

    His supporters will buy into it, of course. They have forgiven his racism and sexism repeatedly in the past, because it's only about winning! And he's less racist and sexist than the other guy!

    And then they wonder why women and minorities don't turn out to vote for him...
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    will come back to this.
    just postulating a concept of culturaly normafied xenophobia
    generic traites. skin colour, facial features. clothing. language, accents... etc etc...
    very superficialy the southern states oppose the northern states.
    skin colour plays into that narative as a statistical construct of winning a vote between 2 sides.
    keeping in mind right wing conservative mainstream usually have a much more consistant voter turn out so low voter turn out always favours the conservative bent.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    is there a sense of associated normalcy to skin colour via "black" Vs modern/era noted african american ?
    is there a lost narative in the mix where old worldy concepts simply cant cope with modern intellect ?

    i wonder as a social cultural issue, how much there might be learnt from the process of addiction.
    without admitting there is a problem there is no solution.
    thus without manditory quota systems forcing a certain number of black native chinese etc into political power, then the addict(society and how it models its own actions and rules and down the end eventualy laws etc) never admits there is a problem.

    keeping in mind "trust" is a game
    if they have been brain washed to not trust him so they dont vote for him then the racists win.
    are they simply doing what the racists want by not trusting him ?
    you need to materialise a concept of total value for the atribute of the action to recieve the vote to balance against.
    trump and his wall
    bernie and his what ? quota systems for universitys and local state bodys ?

    when the cultures already materialistic it needs real world items to create fact around which becomes trust.
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    bernie being already labelled a commie gives votes to trump by calling trump a racist.
    meanwhile no one trusts a women like hillary so dont trust the demos...

    its such a sad inditement on the general voting public of the usa.
    but they were there to be played as the sucker in a shell game of their own making.

    what i think has really woken people up is the true nature of selfishnes of those in power.
    previousely the government machine has been expected to run its own coarse.
    meanwhile its been slowly steered more and more toward extremist pay per vote lobying to the ends of it being a financial dictatorship.

    no one wanted to beleive it as long as they were making enough money.

    now climate change looks like it has a good chance of killing one of your grandchildren people suddenly start to pay more attention.

    how much racism is inside USA xenophobia normalised culture ?
    can an election be won without using xenophobia as a tool to gain voters in the usa ?
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i have often wondered how much of the black conservative vote has been tied up inside black evengelical churches.
    meanwhile the harsh reality of a society that predates upon people forces them to act defensively, and gathering in groups to protect themselves while being a minority is a normal yet confounding issue for nice society at large.
    generaly the inverted nature of protectionism drives a feature of capitalism that defines user pays morality as being the only plausible model outside the walls of the church.
    without solid sustained funding and community leadership this drives the suburben culture to self actualise a polarity that validates xenophobic dog whistle statistics as an easy sell to nervous insular consumers in a uncaring nation/government.

    self fulfilling prophecy etc...
    i probably should read this
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    usa kids tv formulas where they have a chosen child in the mix to create a mix of cultures to fit a model.
    1 black 2 white 1 chinese 1 efeminate male 1 nerd 1 jock etc etc...
    this consistent show of social normalcy of xenophobic modelling of childrens psyches is a simple illistration of the consumer who buys the TV content.
    it works.
    its cheap
    there is something able to be twisted to a pretended gain for almost any culture...

    remember the black tv shows of the late 80s ?
    still no black super hereo
    no black lead character with a white cast etc etc...

    meanwhile the NFL & NBL & their trillions of $ are being held together by black men being watched by white men

    that is a very good reason why first past the post political systems are a really really bad idea.

    excuse typos im not proof reading extensively.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    It is still racism.


    “Bernie’s problem is the problem of privileged white people in general,” McKinnon told me. “It’s, ‘I didn’t mean anything bad by this, so I’m okay.’ I think Bernie would do well to listen to that criticism and sit with it and ask where did he err as opposed to lashing out.”


    Verdejo still believes Sanders’s core message about economic inequality is important, but it doesn’t capture the racial complexities of the America that he and other people of color live in — especially in the wake of police shooting after police shooting and recent news about two young black men arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks simply for asking to use the bathroom of without ordering anything first.

    “It still does not matter, your place in society,” Verdejo said. “If you’re a person of color, you can easily be gunned down by the police.”

    Duke senior Erica Onuoha agreed, saying Sanders’s economic vision is well and good, but it doesn’t address the current racially charged landscape in the US.

    “He was too idealistic for black people, in general,” Onuoha told me. “I think we’re more realistic right now. Right now, we’re just trying to go to a coffee shop and not get the police called on us.”

    That was from April of this year, after Sanders had a bit of an issue with listening to black voters.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's all accurate. The GOP did run overtly racist campaigns, and back then as now used Sanders's much milder and largely policy-irrelevant racism to bolster their bothsides meme.
    A meme that did and does get a lot of help from the dingbat media.
    Lots of times it's not "forgiveness", it's lesser of two evils decisionmaking. In his case, a lot lesser.
    Somebody's "wondering"?
    Next to "socialism" it was the main topic. If we are going to refight 2016 ad infinitum, anyway - which Trump most definitely wants to do.
    We in the disreputable keyboard sphere have been trying to get Dems to do that for decades. Or major media. Or freaking anybody with the access to the megaphone. Instead, we got Clintonist Compromising and Major Media Mollifying by the shovelful. But hey - maybe the Trump Catastrophe will work like the Crash of '08 after Katrina, and we'll get a pile of desperation votes and a couple of months of Democratic control in a couple of years. It's looking good for that lately - the next Senate batch is weighted against the bad guys, and you gotta know Trump is going to screw up the Census.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Policy irrelevant racism?

    Sanders has yet to address the cause of economic disparity for minority voters and how that disparity will not get better even with his policies. To suggest that his racism is somehow or other better because it is "policy irrelevant" is yet another form of appeasement to racism and racist ideology. What? Because his form of racism allegedly does not harm anyone, it's somehow okay?

    Do you want to try to argue that his racism is somehow or other not relevant when it comes to policy and decision making?

    If a candidate cannot address how racism affects access to employment, accommodation and house ownership and rental properties, education, access to healthcare.. You know, all those things he plugs from his platform, how exactly is he going to address these issues for minorities?

    Oh wait... I forgot.. From last year (don't have to go back to 2016) as a prime example:

    As the Daily Beast reports, host Meyers then asked Sanders if he worries that Monday’s Mueller indictments could give the left false hope, pushing them away from focusing “on the ballot box.”

    “Yes. I mean, I think we’ve got to work in two ways,” Sanders answered. “Number one, we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans.”

    Sanders said those “ordinary Americans” are “not staying up every day worrying about Russia’s interference in our election.” Instead, he said, “They’re wondering how they’re going to send their kids to college” or “how they’re going to be able to pay the rent” or “whether they can afford health care.”


    The framing is strange—Sanders juxtaposes “ordinary Americans” against women, Latinx and black people and the LGBTQ community as if they were different groups. He also frames those “ordinary Americans” and their issues as “equally ... or more important” than that of the marginalized communities he lists before.

    Systemic racism and sexism regularly affect those “bread and butter” issues Sanders describes: paying for college, rent and health care. Black and Latinx families are losing wealth, not gaining it. The Trump administration’s attacks on environmental regulations can also compound the damage suffered by marginalized communities, which are disproportionately affected by global warming and environmental disasters. Black and brown people regularly give a fuck about social justice issues, like police brutality and criminal-justice reform, along with their job prospects. At the same damn time. In fact, they understand better than other “ordinary Americans” how those circles intersect.

    This line of reasoning from Sanders isn’t atypical. In the spring, Sanders defended Donald Trump voters.

    “Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there,” Sanders said. The greater point the senator was trying to make was that Trump didn’t win the election as much as the Democrats lost it.

    But if Sanders continues to talk about people of color and queer communities in this way, one wonders what, exactly, the senator thinks he’ll gain—and whether he values the people he’ll certainly lose.

    Naw, course his racism is "policy-irrelevant". (Eye-roll)

    As I said, if his policies cannot address what causes the economic disparity to begin with, then he's barking into thin air, and he will fail repeatedly.

    Even the minorities in his home State have had to give him a bit of a reminder that they actually exist, because historically, he has failed to address their issues and concerns.

    Naw, really?

    We'd never have guessed, iceaura.

    It's only acceptable when it's your guy doing it.

    Not wondering anymore. Everyone knows.

    And who is talking about 2016? I am talking about the comments he has made now and in the past year.

    Why are you talking about 2016?

    You are the one arguing that it's simply a matter of "its lesser of two evils decisionmaking" and how his racism is "much milder and largely policy-irrelevant". Those are your words.

    Racism is racism. It is harmful. It is evil. It is vile.

    Trying to argue that his version is somehow better is obscene as far as I am concerned.

    His fence sitting, declaring the campaigns against these candidates as being racist, but then suggesting that the white people who did not vote for them because they are black are not racist is obscene. His comments were and are stupid. His comments continue to excuse racism and his excuses dismiss overt and blatant racism for the sake of politics.

    This willingness to sell out, to accept racism, sexism, bigotry for the sake of politics has to end. Stop making excuses for it. Stop justifying it because you have somehow or other managed to convince yourself that some forms of racism are "policy irrelevant" and thus, less harmful. That's just bullshit and we all know it.
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    do you think the average american has a good idea and ability to explain what racism is in their society ?
    i.e do you think they can clearly define the difference between ecconomic segragation vs cultural segragation ?
    is black american culture different to white american culture in their definition as they explain it ?
    is there a difference in cultural segragation vs ecconomic segragation as they explain it ?
    i am a little tired to wade through pages of quotes of people making comments about their opinion of other peoples opinions.
    i will have to read up on actual quotes of bernies to ge an idea.
    i do not follow him per-say so this wil be new info.

    do southern people identify with a female leader better than a male leader as an alternate to the government system they are opposed to ? is that racism via proxy gender discrimination ?(bit complex but im sure you get my general idea of a question)

    i do not have enough information to form an opinion of the content of bernies political mesage on racial boundarys and ideologies.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Pretty much. Which of his policies would be significantly different if he were not racist? Some differences, sure - but comparatively minor.
    It varies considerably across the political spectrum. There's a big difference between the ways police departments behaving in bigoted fashion would be treated by any Republican, any of the Clinton faction, and somebody like Sanders if he got his way, for example. Likewise welfare reform, money lending in the inner city, school funding, and so forth.
    Not at all. Lesser evil is still evil. It's just slightly less onerous and objectionable than the Clinton faction's, and much less so than any Republican's.
    You were talking about him not getting minority and woman votes in 2016. And you are talking about comments, not policies.
    Not "simply".
    I wasn't. Nothing in that paragraph was about 2016 in particular.
    Except for Clinton, of course. I was doing ok when I sold out and voted for Clinton, right? And Tina Smith, here in my home State Senate race Tuesday - not really comfortable with the black, brown, or red population apparently, not a street level politician, but smart and wonk-capable and far better in that respect than the batshit Republican we were fortunate enough to see them run - who got 42% of the vote starting with no name recognition and half the money, just on bigotry and fundamentalism and the R (so we got lucky).
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    while i do believe bernie is not a perfect candidate i do believe the attacks against him are overblown and work to the benefit of republicans. lets not for get the two people here attacking them have a. Bought into what was proven now to be russian interference in our elections. and b support of a corrupt primary designed to ensure a particular candidate won. while attacking bernie lets not forget him running empowered the DSA (democratic socialists of America) which tends to run female and minority candidates. Which one which of alexandria cortez is the first working class represenative in decades possiblely ever.

    sorry tiassia but your complaints about republican domination fall flat considering your old enough to be voting in the compromise first centerists that got us into this mess. we need real progressives of all stripes. the idea that bernie doesn't care about womens or POC issues isn't true he just puts his economic platform first. while not ideal for those its not a direct benefit to right away doesn't mean he is racist or sexist. this is why white men will never vote democrat. because nobody is going to vote for a party that tells them they always have to be at the back of line. yes poor whites tend to be racist but people like you telling them they are essentially underserving of support is why trump fucking won. because he made them feel listened too. keep this shit up and it will be the reason trump gets reelected in 2020.
    ElectricFetus likes this.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    How will a candidate achieve proper economic and progressive reform if he repeatedly fails to acknowledge the direct causes of economic inequality for minorities?

    Sanders is on record for directly appealing to white voters only, you know, the "ordinary Americans", while responding to repeated questions about the direct causes to economic inequality for minorities by dismissing them and reminding minorities that the politics around their identity is simply not important.

    His latest remarks, still refusing to call out blatant racism does not bode well.

    If minorities cannot access jobs, housing, healthcare, education, financial loans, etc, because they are minorities, that is racism. The cause of their not moving into the middle class, is racism. A politician who literally says that not voting for a black candidate, that those people are not racist, is excusing and supporting the kind of people who will not hire a black person because they are black, or rent a house in a better neighborhood because they are black.

    Excusing racism is bad. Dismissing it as he has done is appeasing to the worst in society. He is telling them it is okay to do that, while at the same time telling the victims of racism that 'sorry, but the politics around their identity is simply not that important', because he prefers to court the white male voice.. It will never be a winning strategy.

    For example:
    Ya, also addressing the cause of inequality for minorities means less time for the "white men", the real disenfranchised group.. It is only the white men who count...

    The willingness to justify and excuse racism for politics is astonishing.. And people wonder why America continues to have issues with race..
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  19. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Yes thats racist an Sanders needs to educate hisself an understand that its racist for the long term good of everbody.!!!
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    so im doing some back-reading...(i was never really interested in the in-fighting between hilary & bernie i wanted hilary to win with bernies policies ideally having both of them at the table knowing most of americans still cant psychologicaly cope with a woman telling them what to do while harbouring a fantasy fear of reds under the bed)
    Clinton, Sanders, and the Myth of a Monolithic “Black Vote”
    By Collier Meyerson

    April 15, 2016

  21. Bells Staff Member

    It's interesting.

    I had actually considered posting that quote on its own and asking people if they thought it was racist.

    I wanted to know how people thought about it on its own, without Sanders muddying the waters and bringing out the defenses we have seen thus far from his supporters.. to the point of being willing to excuse and overlook his racism and worst, even partaking in it:

    As I noted above, this is a very bigoted view, that if the issues facing white men are not addressed and solely addressed, then somehow, it cannot be addressed. That addressing one of the causes of poverty for minorities, is somehow or other taking more resources away from the voters that only count for these people, the 'white men'.

    These issues with Sanders have been flagged for years. That he still refuses to acknowledge them is bad. If he intends to run in 2020, then he will not win if he continues to excuse racism and justify it as he has just done. If he cannot address why income inequality is as it is for minorities, women and LGBTQ, he will never be able to fix it and the more he keeps demanding that the most important thing is for "ordinary Americans" while deliberately excluding minorities, women, LGBTQ from that equation, the less likely these groups will step out and vote for him if he decides to run and somehow manages to win the Democrat's nomination..

    And the more his supporters refuse to acknowledge the role of minorities in getting Democrats elected, the more they will lose and the more they keep demanding that Sanders only focus on white identity politics while saying that "identity politics" when it comes to minorities, LGBTQ and women is damaging, the less likely those groups will step out to vote for him.

    These repeated excuses for racist ideology, just ensures racism is not going to be addressed or taken seriously.

    Back in 2017, Sanders again denied the racism underlying many of Trump's voters and one reporter made a very astute observation:

    And one must also not overlook how Donald Trump's presidential campaign and victory inspired a wave of hate crimes across the United States against Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, First Nations people, gays and lesbians and those of other marginalized communities. Donald Trump used a megaphone of racism and bigotry to win the 2016 presidential election. His supporters heard those signals loud and clear.

    Sanders is also committing another error in reasoning and inference, one that is common among white Americans in the post-civil rights era. Racism and white supremacy are not a function of what is in peoples' hearts, what they tell you about their beliefs or the intentions behind their words or deeds. In reality, racism and white supremacy are a function of outcomes and structures. Moreover, the "nice people" that Sanders is talking about benefit from white privilege and the other unearned advantages that come from being white in America.

    Sanders' statement is also a reminder of the incorrect lessons that the Democratic Party is in danger of learning from its 2016 defeat.

    Chasing the largely mythical "white working-class voters whose loyalties went from "Obama to Trump" will not win future elections. The white working-class voters they covet are solidly Republican.

    Alienating people of color and women by embracing Trump's base of human deplorables will not strengthen the Democratic Party. It will only drive away those voters who are the Democratic Party's most reliable supporters.

    Sanders has unintentionally exemplified the way that both white liberals and white conservatives are heavily influenced by the white racial frame. As such, both sides of the ideological divide are desperate to see the best in their fellow white Americans, despite the latter's racist behavior.

    The only thing I would argue against in that is that he has done this unintentionally. It is now clear, after years of attempts to address this issue with Sanders, to no avail, that it is intentional.

    Chasing the racist white vote at the expense of everyone else, will see them lose again.

    And doing so by excusing racism is in itself, racist.

    Whatever Sanders' reasons for refusing to address this and learn from his previous mistakes, it needs to stop now, because continuing to excuse, justify and embolden racism and bigotry is dangerous.
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Is any part of that factually incorrect?
    It seems to me, what you're objecting to is anyone referring to the American reality, except in confrontational terms - "calling people out" - in fact, a reflexive parroting of a liberal position that blames people for feelings they can't control, without offering them any help in overcoming that discomfort. It has a complex etiology; not simple guilty racism. Blaming has never solved the problem, which is systemic and endemic. It's never going away through being ignored or denied or punished. The longer you guys refuse to talk about it, the longer it will last.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    You don't think that not voting for someone because they are black is racist?

    Do you think excusing and justifying it is going to help overcome it? How about ignoring it altogether?

    Do you think racists need to be molly coddled so their feelings aren't hurt and heaven forbid we actually name it.. racism.. Because we do not want to offend their delicate sensibilities..

    Meanwhile, while we continue to fail to acknowledge their racism, their racism continues to endanger the lives of minorities, affect how minorities are employed, access housing and healthcare.

    There is a reason why the GOP ran racist campaign adds. They were appealing to the same white folks that Sanders is saying are not racist for not wanting to vote for a black candidate because that candidate was black.

    Yep. And next time a black person is not hired because they are black, we'll just say the employers were simply uncomfortable with hiring a black person. Or how about when a white police officer shoots an unarmed black person, we'll just bring it down to their being uncomfortable with black people and we should not assign blame, we should not label it as racist, because we should really be helping them to overcome that discomfort.

    These are the people who will not vote for a black candidate because they are black and these are the very people Sanders is saying are not racist, that they just need time to imagine that black people can hold positions of power..

    Tell me though, Jeeves. How do you suggest we help racists overcome their racism.. Sorry, their "discomfort" at black people and candidates? Exposure? Maybe stagger it? Have candidates that start off as olive skinned and gradually, over the course of several elections, have candidates that have darker skin each time so they get used to it and aren't discomforted by the thought of black people attaining a position of power?

    If you refuse to vote for someone because they are black, then that is racism. Full stop. Bullshit terminology like "uncomfortable" and "discomfort" to describe racism is just another way to dismiss racism and the negative affect it has on society as a whole and it also dismisses and ignores the inherent dangers of the ideology to begin with.

    Black people aren't the ones ignoring it. How can they ignore their reality?

    Bernie Sanders is the one ignoring it, dismissing it, excusing it and refusing to call it out by its real name. Racism.

    Hence the title of this thread.

    Why not call it out by its name?

Share This Page