General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMartin Luther King fought equally hard for civil rights and economic equality.
He was killed for fighting for both.
Rosa Luxemburg was killed fighting for both feminism and socialism with equal passion.
Harvey Milk fought equally hard for gay and lesbian rights AND economic equality. He was killed for fighting for both.
As were and are unknown people fighting for both, in the past and even today.
Both struggles are of equal importance, and are tied together.
Both must be fought for with equal passion.
Is it asking too much for everybody to agree on this?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)made economic equality a very large part of his overall civil rights message. Obviously the two can go together. Some here at DU can't seem to get that through their heads, however.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)justifies looking the other way on economic and foreign policies that do great harm to people who needs the progress on rights issues. Globalization, austerity, the decline of unions, big military budgets and perpetual was do disproportionate harn to women, people of color, and the global majority of LGBTQ people who must remain closeted and terrified because global poverty always increases global bigotry.
villager
(26,001 posts)...mutually exclusive of the other.
Of course, it was the turn to economic issues that got MLK killed. Can't have a coalition that broad, suddenly start making links to "separate" issues...
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)MLK wasn't a threat until his message developed broader public appeal to poor whites. MLK became a threat (in their short-sighted brains) to industrialists, corporatists, and the MIC, at least indirectly, IMO.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)in my longer post. Dead on.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)It is little short of trolling at this point, IMO.
Economic issues are universal, literally; they affect every last human being on the planet for better or worse.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Both need to be fed(obviously, bread comes first).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I, and others, see the lack of social justice as the proximate denier of bread; whereas, those with social justice, do not.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)Perfect.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The concept ... that which PoC, and others depraved of social justice, is not that hard to understand?
I would have thought I was speaking some, long forgotten language because those claiming to be my allies, seem to not understand what I have been saying.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is of historical proportions, and it is minorities who are the most affected by it.
For anyone to try to argue that economic oppression has nothing to do with other rights, is simply ludicrous.
MLK understood that. So has every Civil Rights leader throughout history.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)By pretending that social justice must take precedence over economic justice because if you are for economic justice at all you are somehow, by definition, putting social justice on the back burner, they can say that their candidate is best because s/he is for social justice because that's the most important thing.
Truth of the matter is there is a candidate who is fighting for BOTH at the same time. And that candidate happens to be Sen. Bernie Sanders.
There is one person running around pretending to support Sanders and in the same sentence/post is saying he only stands for white males because his economic policy will benefit Wall St/corporations (yes, they said that) and then we have to wait for "trickle down" (again, yes they said trickle down) and so therefore it only benefits white males.
So I find the social justice vs. economic justice idea disingenuous. How hard is it, really, to see that we can fight for and have both? Nay, it is a ploy to push a candidate who has a poor standing on economic issues.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)MLK is a hero to humanity, not just to "his race."
When I have previously expressed my feelings about him in these terms, I have been chastised for somehow diminishing his importance in the Civil Rights movement.
Do I diminish Einstein's contributions to physics if I go on to acknowledge his speaking out on socialism?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Though a man of religion, Dr King was also a great humanist and humanitarian towards whom all should look.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If your acknowledgement of his speaking on socialism is cast as ... "Einstein was REALLY all about socialism and not physics" or "Einstein moved from physics to socialism" ... as is the DU case.
RandallBurns
(5 posts)I personally think that an element of the rich in the US were willing to accept MLK's civil rights message and allow a few blacks to enter the upper class.
What I think caused MLK to be killed was this statement:
"I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.
—from the chapter titled "Where We Are Going"
"
Huey Long advocated a similar policy and met a similar fate. I do NOT think this is a grand conspiracy at play, but elements of law enforcement and the military get hysterical around these kinds of ideas.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)If you're not good on all of it, you're not good.
JI7
(89,241 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)economic issues do not include social issues.
That is the point many are attempting to make.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)There will never be economic justice until there is social justice. Social issues are exactly about denying people the ability to have parity on economic issues, and more. Women will never have economic justice until they are no longer forced to have babies at the will of men, harassed by men, raped by men. Black people will never have economic justice until they are no longer shot in the streets by cops, harassed by stop'n'frisk cops, until they aren't followed in stores and assumed to be demons by racist white folks. LBGT people will never have economic justice until they can no longer be fired or thrown out of housing for not being straight and/or cis.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)With economic justice, women could walk away from abusive men. With economic justice, black people could have more political power to change how their neighborhoods are policed. With economic justice, LBGT people will buy their houses, and use their money to push the policy they want through congress.
Economic Justice...Social Justice...which came first the chicken or the egg?
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Until minority groups participate in making decisions, they will continue to favor white straight men.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Citizens United means money = speech. Decrepit white men will try to hold on to power, but if people of color bring the GREEN, they will gradually be the voices that matter.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)do NOT have money OR power ... that is why there is this call/fight for economic justice. PoC (and other marginalized groups) do not have money or power or intra-class parity on either.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And a lot of dialog.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)dominated by the straight, white (Christian) male ... otherwise we have the status quo.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't want that alliance or that dialogue to be dominated by anybody.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If only we could get rid of white straight men ... that attempt to define away the issues of PoC, women, the LGBT community and all other marginalized groups.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Economic justice could be used TO ENFORCE social justice, but not underwrivvte it.
The above points out clearly what a DUer observed ... for many (those born into social justice) social justice is about the rights of the individual and economic justice is a societal right.
Yes, with more money, the woman CAN walk away from that particular abuser; but not the random entitled male on the street or in the workplace; nor, will she escape the societal sentiment that creates that entitlement ...
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)then the random male won't have the majority critical mass to maintain that entitled posture.
That's the basis for believing social and economic justice are intertwined.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Are you assuming that only people who haven't been historically oppressed are affected by corporate control of politics, by increasing economic inequality, by austerity, layoffs, redlining, homelessness? None of those things are exclusively or even predominately "white people problems".
All of the above disproportionately affect poc, women, and the majority of LGBTQ who don't feel economically privileged enough to come out of the closet.
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)
People who are openly gay are "economically privileged"?! Do you even realize how offensive your remark is? You have effectively set GLBT people apart from POC and women in terms of discrimination based on their economic situation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So ... help me out here: the determiner of whether a LGBT person lives openly is whether one can financially afford to do so ... rather than, the fear of having the living sh!t kicked out of you because you do not hide your sexuality, and not because of the living openly would subject one to the daily indignities one faces living openly in a society that stigmatizes LGBT peoples?
Wow ... the things we learn about LGBT peoples from non-LGBT peoples on DU! Next some non-PoC is going to tell PoC that we can buy our way out of racial discrimination ... Oh, wait!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I meant was just that you're less likely to face such a shitkicking if you are higher up economically, from what I've seen.
And that gaybashing was, sadly, more often(but not absolutely) an imminent risk if you're living in a working-class area.
It was never meant to be an implication that the gay community are living on Easy Street.
I'd never claim to know more about being LGBTQ than the LGBTQ community ourselves.
I'd like to learn, if you're willing to teach. Give me a chance here. You post, I'll read.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We're at a starting point.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But you'd have to agree that it's a hell of a lot easier to be out of the closet, in general, if you're somebody like David Geffen than it is if you're, say, living in a mill town in the South or in a working-class neighborhood in Pittsburgh. Saying that issimply an acknowledgment that gays who are lower in the class system often(but not always) have it a lot tougher than gays who are upper-middle class or sitting on corporate boards.
Why is that observation offensive to you? I was simply pointing out the role class sometimes plays in this. I wasn't saying that gays, as a group, are economically privileged and would never say anything like that.
Kudos to working-class gays who have managed to come out, obviously.
And please stop acting like I haven't proved I'm not your mortal enemy. I've done nothing to deserve that from you.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and this whole trope your cohort pushes demonstrates, that you have no knowledge of the history or actual objectives of LGBT politics, the role of coming out in those politics and the fact that our politics have always, always been about equity, equality in all things, the first and still overriding issues being employment discrimination and police abuse.
Your theory that coming out is always an option and that it is reserved for the wealthy is highly offensive, inaccurate and dripping with privilege.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nor did I deny that LGBTQ people have fought for the things you list there (I've worked with them on man many causes).
What is so terrible about saying that it's often(but not always) much easier to come out when you are higher up in the class system? Obviously, even then it's massively difficult.
I was not equating being gay with being privileged or with being economically royalist or indifferent to the oppression of others. That would be a stupid thing to say.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Economic standing is not a good predictor of how hard or how easy a person will have it coming out. It's just not. So to say that it's easier for wealthy people is just not really true. It's far more about the straight people around you, the ones who hold your heart. If they are assholes, it goes poorly. If they are supportive, it goes well.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My statement was never iintended to be sweeping or absolute.
Thanks for that post. You helped teach me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)When women are jailed for not being perfect incubators, so rarely trusted when reporting crimes or making decisions about their fertility- we intimately know the impact of the system designed to fuck us over. This is what the OP completely ignores, wrongly thinking money will solve anything. It's so wrong.
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts) Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)"It wasn't meant as a universal statement and you know it."
First, don't tell me what I know. You have no idea what I know and your statement had nothing to do with "knowing". Second, you are comparing apples and oranges in regards to your Geffen/working class example. Money gives you some privilege, no one is claiming anything different, but you are failing to see is it doesn't stop the social injustice. Until recently, in most states, it didn't matter if you were a rich gay or poor gay person, you could NOT marry! In 27 states, rich or poor, if you are gay you can lose your home. The only advantage a rich gay has, is being able to get another home more easily or to buy, instead of rent, but that holds true of anyone with money. The difference? The non-gay persons aren't going to be thrown out of their home for being "straight." Third, it should be obvious to most people, that even money doesn't alleviate social injustice in regards to sexual orientation. C'mon, Ken, how many GLBT celebs are there? Sports stars? Business tycoons? Why don't they come out if they have it so easy? I'll let you in on a little secret, even a gay man with money is often known as a "faggot." That's right, it doesn't matter how much money they have, they are still 'less than' because of their sexual orientation. This is also true of race and gender...ask Oprah where to buy a purse.
"I wasn't saying that gays, as a group, are economically privileged and would never say anything like that. "
Whether you intended it or not, that is exactly how it came across. I am gay, Ken. Do you know what it is to be gay? Can you see through the eyes and perspective lens of being a sexual minority in the US? Just as their is "white and "male privilege", there is "straight privilege" too!
"And please stop acting like I haven't proved I'm not your mortal enemy. I've done nothing to deserve that from you."
I am not doing anything of the such! You are the one elevating yourself to such a position. I am gay. I know what it is to be gay in this country, in this world. You do not. Perhaps you might learn more if you listened to gay people rather than telling what they do and don't know, especially when one of them disagrees with you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I never meant to say that money stops social injustice. Just that it made coming out itself easier in some ways(though of course not all.
I know that even a lot of wealthy and famous people who are gay remain closeted, and what gay men(and lesbians, and the transgendered) are often called. No one should have to face that, or the far worse things you also face.
Sorry for even making it sound as though I thought gays as a group are privileged, or that your struggles against oppression are done. I never believed either of those things.
And I would be a delusional idiot to claim to understand what it is to be LGBTQ. Some days I have trouble understanding what it's like being a 54-year old straight white leftist with thick glasses and a lot of dental work to get done...inn other words, what it's like to be myself.
As to my last remark...I was angry when I wrote it, and lashed out. That was inappropriate. Your posts do tend to read, though, as though you keep wanting people to prove they are on your side, and, since I generally think i am(other than our differences in the I/P group) it's difficult to avoid feeling defensive at times in response to them. Not sure howto deal with that at this point.
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)Im stunned by the ignorance. Oh my god!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And even if that is true I never said we should only talk about economic issues, or that they matter more than social issues.
Or that you could solve all social issues by addressing economic issues. Totally not where my OP was coming from.
What I want to avoid, essentially, is Nineties-era politics, in which(tiny) gains on some social issues justified total abandonment of economic justice issues by our supposedly Democratic president of that era. That wasn't good for anybody.
I think you want to avoid that as well, if I read you right.
Number23
(24,544 posts)said that these issues are the same!1 And that you and the other black folks, gays and women are just "trolling" because you refuse to accept that unless everyone has the same amount of money, then social justice will never happen!!1 
Never mind that this ENTIRE FUCKING NATION was built on the framework that some people will NEVER have the same amount of money or rights as others -- which is a big part of the ENTIRE fucking point -- simply because of the way they look or who they love.
GOD, this thread. 
The only thing that's encouraging is the number of people that have taken the time out for what... the eight thousandth time to try to school the unschoolable and teach the unteachable. If it wasn't an utter and complete exercise in futility I'd be seriously applauding you, seabeyond, ism and a few others.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Is it possible for you to do a post without the insults towards anyone who doesn't agree with you? Or to engage in actual civil discussion of issues? I'd think you were genuinely interested in discussion if you'd bothered to answer my question I posed about universal healthcare. You didn't, but several others did and did it in a civil way.
Trying to portray other DUers as racists, homophobes or sexists because they don't want to sideline one issue over another is lame. I've seen that happening a fair bit in this thread. How about dealing with the fact that for most left-wingers social issues are vitally important and so are economic issues? That they don't want to discard their concern for economic issues should be something most adults can accept and move on from. After all, there's such a thing as multitasking and many people can do it really well.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Never saying anything intelligent or interesting. You insult so many woman and people of color on this board and what's funny is that the vast majority of the time, you don't even know why what you're saying is so clueless/ignorant/offensive and you are too busy trying to "scold" others to just step back, realize maybe you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and just walk away from the discussion.
You have befriended some of the biggest race baiting and sexist trolls on this web site, including one that you made a point of even circumventing DU rules to help out right before he got the axe. I have ignored you so much you have even posted to me saying "WHY DO YOU KEEP IGnORING MEEE111??" and yet you STILL KEEP POSTING TO ME. Tell me, precisely, what the fuck I need to get to you to leave me alone?? Tell me. Because repeatedly ignoring you for some completely INEXPLICABLE reason isn't doing the trick.
My comment about the dimwits wasn't even about you so it is BEYOND hilarious that you jumped up to fight that fight. The phrase 'a hit dog will holler' could not be better exemplified by your words.
I have no idea why my posts agitate the hell out of you so much. Actually, I'd be lying if I said I don't have some idea why but you are so freaking fixated on me that this shit has gotten completely out of hand and I'm actually going to violate my own "Ignore the Crumblings of Violet" rule and tell you straight up that I don't care what you have to say about anything and I wish you would leave me the fuck alone. It's really that simple.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)And I strongly stress the word crap here. From start to finish that nasty post was full of complete bullshit. You proved my point about trying to paint anyone who disagrees as being bigoted. I'm not interested in whatever faction in some stupid clique war ur battling on behalf of.
As for that crap about being obsessed with you. Yr far more fixated and upset by me than the other way round. You were always nice to me right up till when I said that I'd voted to hide an abusive post by one of ur friends. Next thing I knew you were down in HOF carrying on about me in a thread there. Just a suggestion that I'm sure will cop me more yelling from you but as I bother you so much why not just put me on ignore? That way you won't need to do that thing where you 'ignore' people by posting elsewhere in a thread making snide comments about them. And those (and there's plenty of them if u looked around) who want to actually discuss issues can do that. Plus u don't then need to tell women u don't like to stay quiet when they see something they disagree with. It's a win win situation!
Number23
(24,544 posts)swarm of bees to go flying up your bonnet at every given opportunity and PLEASE understand that many other people have seen that as well.
If you read "abusive crap," "bigoted" or whatever else you are once again blathering endlessly and boringly about out of my post instead of "you need to stop inserting yourself into conversations that you CLEARLY do not understand and trying to browbeat people when you don't have the first clue what they have experienced" then that's your choice. It has no bearing on me whatsoever.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Because here you are again, not ignoring me. It was a suggestion anyway, not the YOU NEED TO STOP! orders you've been barking out.
I'll expand on what I said before, even though I know already you'll hit the Blather Buzzer. Which is fine because yr not my target audience. I don't do blather or boring, or insipid or any of the kneejerk and insulting words you've thrown at me. I don't do internet raging either and leave it to others to do the exploding head thing.
Yes, I sure do read an accusation of bigotry in the attack you aimed at me. That's what these were: 'You insult every single woman and person of color on this board' and 'You have befriended some of the biggest race baiting and sexist trolls on this web site'.
Those accusations were made without any thought whatsoever. I'm a feminist and I co-founded one of the feminist groups here at DU3 and am a strong supporter of women's rights for the very selfish reason that they affect me directly. You won't find a single post where I've insulted every woman at DU because there isn't one. Same goes for racial issues. I tend to read those more than I participate as the racial issues here are a bit different than in the US. The only one I got involved in was a few months back about whether or not Iggy Azalea had appropriated African American culture and done a bit of modern blackface. I'm at a complete loss as to how I insulted every person of colour at DU by agreeing that she had indeed done that and had in the past made racist comments about indigenous Australians. So we can throw that accusation in the complete bullshit bin and be done with it...
As for befriending racist and sexist trolls, that one's also going straight in the bullshit bin. I'm kind of selective with my friends at DU after being badly burnt early on at DU3, and my circle of friends is a very small one. Not one single one of them is racist or an MRA. While it might give you a bit of a buzz to believe you *know* about me, the reality is you don't know me, nor my experiences and strongly held beliefs and I'm pretty sure you have zero interest in finding out from me.
I'm not sure where all that rage came from, and where you got the bizarre idea that me replying to you in GD twice in the past few months is some sort of 'every given opportunity thing'. Here's another suggestion that will likely be ignored. If you want people to listen to you and take you seriously, try talking to others how you'd like to be treated yrself. Screaming abuse at people doesn't get anyone anywhere. Demanding that people not participate in discussions because you've deemed them unworthy isn't a great way to get any sort of discussion happening...
Number23
(24,544 posts)come up with? It took how many hours for this garbage to spew forth? Wow. Your fifteen paragraphs of nothing will be yet another post from you that will go unread.
This type of behavior has really become typical here. There are certain DUers that do nothing but chase after people and seem utterly incapable of leaving them alone, even after they've been asked repeatedly to do so. Some folks will do it for YEARS before they stop. It is really a sad state of affairs.
You can try to pretend that I am 1/2000th as interested in you as you are in me but you and I both know that doesn't bear out in any way shape or form. ONE post referring to you in a thread from what, 5-6 months ago is all you've got. And I didn't even mention you by name! Nothing compared to the literal HAUNTING of my steps that you have done here since. At some point I'm hoping you'll get the message though it appears that may be beyond your capabilities.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I wish I could have the knack of not reading something, especially boring work shit, but be able to sit there and throw out very opinionated opinions about what I didn't read! When it comes to timing how long before I responded to you, I don't notice things like that especially as I live in an entirely different time-zone and generally aren't at DU when Americans are...
You might think that me pointing out that the nasty accusations you made about me were completely untrue is 'garbage', 'idiocy' etc. I know yr not reading this, but seeing all that untrue stuff about me makes me take everything you say about anything or anyone else with a massive grain of salt. So I don't know what you think yr achieving by going on about 'certain DUers' all the time. After this 'exchange' you've had with me, I'm not inclined to take anything you say about any DUers seriously. Just that last bit about how I'm supposedly literally HAUNTING you is bizarre. I'm guessing yr talking about me daring to reply to you in this thread, because I think I've only replied to any posts from you a handful of times at DU3 and those few times have been civil and not at all something anyone would get bent out of shape over.
But back to this social/economic thing. While I've seen many DUers say that neither should be ignored at the expense of the other, what I have seen, even in this thread is opposition to the idea that neither should be ignored. And it wasn't social justice that was the concept that was being sent to the back of that straw-bus that trundles round GD. It was economic justice.
Have a lovely evening!
Number23
(24,544 posts)trying to educate you about issues that most folks on the left have known about and been fighting for for decades.
It is EXTREMELY telling that I say to you "it is apparent that you are in over your head and and have no idea what you are talking about or what the issues the rest of are trying to discuss even are" and you puff your chest all out with indignation and then in YET ANOTHER thread about social issues, you come in with "this is probably a stupid questions but WHYYYYYY..." You could not be more obvious that you have NO CLUE about these issues. The only way it could be more obvious is if you made it your signature line.
So instead of chasing black people and women and gays around this board, why don't you just try to LEARN SOMETHING.
LEAVE ME ALONE. Spend more time with your teachers and anyone else who is actually interested in engaging with you and trying to teach you something. I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. YOU DO NOT INTEREST ME. Perhaps if you spent more time with your teachers, you wouldn't be such a lighting rod of ignorance and that would certainly give you far less time to keep chasing after me and others.
GO LEARN SOMETHING.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)See, you'd know that if you read my posts. That question that so offended you was a good one, I thought. There are issues like universal healthcare that are really important to most people on the Left that's both an economic and social issue. And all three who replied were civil and interested in discussion, not screeching at me the way you've been doing in each of yr posts.
I don't chase black people, women and gays round this board. Could you be any more clumsy in those weak attempts to paint me as some sort of bigot? I don't think so...
If I don't interest you it would seem that the easy solution is for you not to reply to me with torrents of abuse as you've been doing. What I'm learning clearly is that replying to yr replies to me in this thread is considered by you to be 'chasing you around'. I'm sorry, but this is a discussion forum and the whole idea is that people post something and others will come along and post a reply.
I'm pretty sure you have no clue at all about what my opinions are in this thread otherwise you wouldn't be so outraged. Even though I've said it clearly, I'll say it again. I think social and economic issues are closely related to each other and can't really be divided up. And those who try to argue that one should take top billing at the expense of the other are wrong, regardless of which one they're talking about.
I hope that was clear enough for you.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Bye, honey! 
GO LEARN. ANYTHING.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)1. Using caps lock plus a full stop after every word adds emphasis TO. ANYTHING. and is the internet equivalent of spitting out words. Cool.
2. I also learnt from one of my DU friends that the phrase 'no worries' went viral a few years ago and spread to the US. So when someone thanks me for posting something at DU, I can say 'no worries, mate' and they'll understand it. This is good.
3. There's an alternate reality version of DU where feminists chase women round DU yelling at them amongst other strange phenomena. I've yet to learn where it's located, but when I do I'm heading there for shits and giggles.
See ya, snookums. It's been one of those strange one-sided exchanges I haven't had since the old I/P forum at DU2.....
Number23
(24,544 posts)With every asinine and thoroughly unread post you send to me, you are missing the sorely needed opportunity to learn something from the numerous people on this board that are trying to help you by teaching you things you should have learned decades ago.
I cannot and will not teach you what you are so clearly and so desperately missing. Instead of wasting your time posting to me, GO LEARN SOMETHING. ANYTHING.
I can't believe people are even debating it. :\
G_j
(40,366 posts)Thank you so much for linking to that.
G_j
(40,366 posts)this is certainly relevant today.
msongs
(67,361 posts)all these commemorations of his life talk about the civil rights issues and ignore his other views that were equally important
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)The reality is that black people needed both Malcolm and Martin. MLK was good at getting white people to open the doors to integration using economic pressure but Malcolm was good at educating blacks about having their own infrastructure before integration. In my mind they're two sides of the same coin and history needs to stop emphasizing one over the other.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)strike of sanitation workers?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the March on Washington was also a labor march.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)neither were about Labor ... unless you are talking about the Black man's struggle for social equality in terms of access to jobs and equal pay, relative to working class whites.
In fact, the Pullman Porters (i.e., labor) were largely shut out of the march ... even though Randolph had been working towards/planning the march for years, prior to its happening.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the March on Selma was about Voter rights.
If you have some information indicating otherwise ... I'd love to see it.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)factual, no more.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)At least from my experience. I can't think of any time in recent years when voters had to choose between a candidate bad on social equality but good on economic equality and a candidate good on social equality but bad on economic equality. From my experience, the more progressive a candidate is the better they are on both issues.
Likewise with activists, progressive activists are often good with both issues. Often, but not always. Sometimes you work with someone who has a good position on a few issues but a poor position on others. But it seems you're just as likely to get someone who's good on some social issues and bad on other social issues as you are someone who's good on economic issues and bad on social issues.
Case in point, the man who delivered the eulogy for Freddie Gray was a member of the Occupy Movement - but has been opposed to gay marriage. Yet no one (thankfully) seems to be saying we have to choose between the marriage equality movement and the black lives matter movement, but we have people pushing this idea that people need to choose to focus on either social justice or economic justice?
And again, most people who I know on the ground are working for both.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)You really think once the civil rights movement was passed, MLK thought, "my people are safe now, I'll work for equality for everyone?"
You think Harvey Milk died with equal rights for Gays on his mind, or how to help his straight brothers and sisters? I wasn't aware Gay rights had advanced to that point back then.
I'll simply disregard anything you say about feminism.
We are talking about systems of oppression, systems that contain institutionalized oppression. racism, sexism, homophobia.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Guess who are the majority of poor people? Single mothers and racial minorities. Economic oppression is intertwined with racism, sexism, and homophobia. You cannot have social justice without economic justice. They are forever linked whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)
At most, some people are saying that the struggle against social oppression and bigotry, crucial as it is, doesn't justify setting aside the struggle against exploitation and economic inequality and the concentration of wealth. They are intertwined struggles.
Economic injustice harms poc, women, and the majority of LGBTQ people just as much as social discrimination. and remindung everyone that those struggles condition each other, and economic injustice is much a form of oppression as racism, sexism, homophobia and trans phobia is the key to ending status-quo politics and building the biggest possible coalition for all the forms of change that we need.
Besides which, Bernie, the progressive candidate, has a BETTER record on every social issue out there than HRC, the supposedly "socially liberal, economically moderate(i.e., conservative" candidate does. Bernie never ran as the "I'm white, like you are" candidate, the way HRC did in 2008 in states like West Virginia.
What is it here that makes you feel so distrustful? Why are you assuming there's some huge effort going out there to get the party to put your concerns on the backburner?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the adults. and being told.... troll, NO, go away.
you wanted this conversation. yet, you are not listening once again to the many that LIVE the experience giving you very clear, simple, easy to understand examples. tell me where and why you do not get the simple.
i disagree. simple. chris rock has the money. the more times pulled over for being black, might warrant dead, a shot in the back. he has economic justice, NO social justice.
(what do you not get?)
i disagree. simple. they are not conditioned. strongblackman has the money to live in the neighborhood that his daughter can look out the window at the country club. his daughter cannot go to a birthday party of classmates because it is being held at the country club. economic does NOT condition the other. FIRST
adn isnt it sweet of us whites to say, to a black man whose daughter is excluded from a birthday party, we are all in the same boat, cause we are not.
do not tell me i am a mere wedge issue. i and the others oppressed are not wedge issues. we are people, demanding our right to sit at the table as i have laid out example how you simply refuse to allow us at the table, as we demand we all become one.
i very basic lack of understanding, and a continued insistence to not understand, regardless how simple. a black girl is upper middle class living next to the country club. her classmates can go to a bday party. she cant. cause she is black.
and how offensive that first, you deny that experience by stating we are ALL oppressed in the same boat. you say, all we need is money and it is fine. leaving certain people to start this race way behind.
it is an innate unfairness. and being an athlete all my life, i feel it is cheating to demand such an unlevel playing field so you get yours
where is the distrust? you really do not understand how that one paragraph did not give me a number of areas your tota inability to understand something so simple
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)On the other hand, what laws were passed for economic justice, and what were the effects for the oppressed?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Movement. All of which made things better although none got rid of the underlying racism or sexism. Now all three movements are under attack by institutional oppression once again and once again we have to fight for all three rights; Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and Labor Rights. I will always fight for all of the above. I will never abandon any of them. I have a 20 year old bisexual daughter and a 16 year old autistic son both of which need to have social justice and economic justice. I have to make sure that my daughter has reproductive rights and civil rights and I have to make sure both of them have access to education and will be able to make living wages when they begin their careers. I also have to make sure the safety nets are not compromised by either party so that if my autistic son or my daughter need those safety nets, they are there for them. I will fight for my children's rights, all of them.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)I have an issue with making it a "We're all in this together now" because the day to day reality of Poc, women and GBLT's is different than the reality of straight white males.
Presuming same experiences are the same was tried by white middle class feminists, it was called "Standpoint theory" and it was a dismal failure. The biggest mistake of feminism IMO.
The point I was getting at (this is a lot of history and I'm leaving out a lot of stuff but I'll make it very short) was it took a lot of work, a lot of pain and suffering and death to get the civil rights movement passed, but before it was passed, blacks weren't expected to earn as much as whites, weren't allowed in jobs that made living wages for the most part, women were commonly dependent on men until certain laws were passed, Gays STILL have to "pass" or stay closeted in areas.
Social Justice laws are what laid the groundwork for ecomonic equity, and we still don't have either one for women and POC as you point out.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)the country return to the 1950's. I also have a husband who believes the complete opposite, who fights for his wife's and daughter's rights as well as for his son's rights. All through out history there have been those who were not in the minority who stood and fought with the minorities for their rights. If you view the film footage of those Martin Luther King Jr. marches there were white people including white males who stood side by side with African Americans and fought for their rights. It was Johnson, a straight white male, who signed the Civil Rights Act into law. I am a straight married woman and I was attending marriage equality rallies way before my daughter ever came out to us. Maybe that is why she felt so comfortable coming out to us. She knew although I and my husband are straight that we would love her, accept her, and fight for her rights. We do need each other because we need the numbers to be able to fight the institutional oppression. It will take all of us coming together and fighting together to win.
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)You and I are both familiar with a variety of them and know their results, but I will answer your second question. As you know, given you are a true ally to the GLBT people, the right to marriage equality is going before the SCOTUS. The potential is to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. This is usually seen as a social justice issue, though some very helpful straight people have corrected me and other 'slow' gays, that this is actually an economic justice issue. So, let's go with that theory (I actually believe it is both, but mainly social justice). Recently, there was an article stating many businesses will expect GL people to marry if they wish to keep their benefits. Several GLBT people see this as short-sighted and likely fraught with potential backlash. Why? Well, see my friend (as you know), while marriage equality may become the law of the land, it does not change the laws in states where GLBT people can be fired, lose their children, and/or lose their homes! Economic justice? Well, if you live in a "good" state that doesn't fire you for being a "homo", then yes, this will lead to economic goodies. However, if you live in, let's say, oh, I don't know...Oklahoma, where I live and where it is legal to fire gays and kick them out of their homes, being forced to marry may create more problems than it solves.
To me, this demonstrates, without sweeping social justice, even an economic justice is not complete. Most minorities realize the importance of economic justice, but we cannot achieve it without social justice. What I see as an issue is many pushing economic justice over (or versus) social justice believe that economic justice affects the many and social justice affects the few; what they fail to understand is that would be true, if and only is, we were all already on equal grounds; we are not!
Economic justice is important. It must be addressed, but it will not succeed without social justice!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie Sanders and virtually all of those who support his candidacy would also.
I don't know of anyone on the progressive side of the spectrum who would ever argue that the fight against homophobia, trans phobia, racism, sexism or any other forms of bigotry and oppression should be abandoned or reduced in significance. All thhhat's really been said is that the fight against economic injustice in all its forms is of equal importance. To your mind, is there anything wrong in that assertion?
It doesn't have to be "either/or".
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)"I don't know of anyone on the progressive side of the spectrum who would ever argue that the fight against homophobia, trans phobia, racism, sexism or any other forms of bigotry and oppression should be abandoned or reduced in significance."
No, they never say it quite that way. They simply call it "wedge issues/distractions/wait for the right time/pink ponies/hot button issues/trolling."
All that's really being said is some of us need to learn our place and our rights and equality will come in due time, though a timeline is never available.
"It doesn't have to be "either/or". "
Apparently, not to some people!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If anything I've posted even sounded like that, I'm deeply sorry.
It's the centrists who will tell you to "wait your turn", not most of us on the left (anyone on the left who does is a jerk).
Economic inequality and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the 1% are just as cruel a form of injustice as homophobia. There is no hierarchy of suffering that differentiates the two.
And bigotry in all forms almost always gets worse in times of greater economic hardship and times of increased exploitation. That's why defeating economic injustice is crucial to successfully combating bigotry in all its forms.
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)No, it hasn't been just "centrists."
"There is no hierarchy of suffering that differentiates the two."
I am not claiming any such nonsense, nor is any one who actively combats social injustice. We are keenly aware of how economic injustice affects minorities! What does seem to stick in some craws is that social injustice intensifies economic injustice, not the other way around.
"And bigotry in all forms almost always gets worse in times of greater economic hardship and times of increased exploitation."
Yes, Jews are quite aware of this, as are immigrants and a few others. If, however, institutionalized bigotry wasn't there, the only bigotry exploited would be personal and societal. What some don't seem to fully grasp is social justice isn't limited, or even primarily, focused on individual and societal bigotries, but rather institutionalized forms of it. That is why combatting social injustice is paramount to creating a just economic system.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All I'd add is that it becomes far easier to fight things like institutionalized bigotry when there is a broad sense that exploitation and material misery are being fought and are being overcome.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and they have been saying it a good couple years.
why are you not hearing it? cause they have been very loud and clear to us.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)insignificant and not what is important now. so. it is not true they are not blatantly in our face shoving us to the back of the bus they very much are.
but, yes. also the more subtle. we are all oppressed.
to put hetero white (christian) male, on the same playing field of the rest of us is just mathematically incorrect.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Never meant it as an attack on those who fight social oppression, but I see how it could have been taken that way, and my poor
wording was to blame. Sorry.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the timetable, though not date specific is clearly knowable ... the social justice battle is to be joined, the day AFTER it is established there are no more poor straight white (Christian) males!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)A DUer, with major DU progressive creds (read: 100s of rec in just about every OP) did write (before self deleting it a couple days later) ... "If you don't understand that income inequality is THE problem; then, YOU are THE problem." And the post got a bunch of DU progressive "Yups."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Income inequality is a huge issue, but so are the sociial issues. The whole point of my OP was to avoid "either/or"thinking of the sort that quote demonstrated.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)many of us are pointing out to you?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm saying is there can be common ground.
Linking social and economic issues is about beginning to level the ground.
About creating the conditions where all the changes can happen.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but... you and others are NOT linking the two. which is the basis for the argument. and no. you are not.
like i said, do not even participate. move out of the way. do not hold the sign in front of my face to hide me. allow me to do the work. i do not want anything from any of you, certainly not you there speaking iwth me. because you are clueless. just do not get in the way and hinder. that is ALL we are working on at this point.
Linking social and economic issues is about beginning to level the ground.
that is an incorrect premise which will not be productive nor effective and you have been given many examples why, ignoring it all.
don. done. i gotta walk away . no more reading this thread. i feel it HAS to be purposeful, willful disconnect.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)those economic populist starting these threads over and over. demanding an explanation from us. and yet, REFUSING to accept this basic fact. the very premise of the argument.
they want to be taken seriously and refuse to acknowledge the simplest.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)Excellent post!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Is to bring together people of color(the vast majority of whom are working class), working-class whites(who have suffered economically as much as poc have suffered socially and economically in the misery of post-1981 America) LGBTQ people(the majority of whom are still forced to stay in the closet, especially of they are poor or working-class themselves, since hard times always reinforce all forms of bigotry) into the largest possible coalition of people seeking a vastly different vision of life.
This is what Jesse Jackson set out to do in creating the Rainbow Coalition. Yes, the man had his limitations, as does everyone in the political sphere, but the vision of the Rainbow(even though the reverend himself gave into pressure from above and shut the Rainbow down as a mass organization in the early 1990's-the worst tactical mistake he ever made) remains valid, still shows us a path to the future.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)are an enormous force to be reckoned with, but when we do organize and we do fight side by side we are also an enormous force to be reckoned with.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)We cannot speak for the experiences of Say, PoC, cannot expect them to with trust or believe in good intentions, in solidarity. History is full of stories of how badly they've been burned in the past and currently. I listen to what people say, and try not to make assumption based on my own experiences.
For many whites, economic justice seems a natural goal, because they don't have to worry about embedded racist systems. For many PoC, social justice is what matters-- their children are being shot in the street, and they live with institutionialized racism as a reality, not as abstract ideas
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I'm not really a feminist. But hey to each their own. I'm not really concerned with who thinks I am a feminist or not. I will continue to live my life in such a way that I will fight for all human rights. I just can't put one right above another. To me they are all rights, and I must fight for all of them.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)And we will meet in those places where we do agree I'm sure.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Sorry I've chosen you to land them on after reading a few threads, but if anyone else wants to jump in with some answers as well that'd be good.
I don't get this dividing up of issues based on whether they're economic or social. Aren't there a whole lot of really important issues that are both? I'll use the universal healthcare system here and pretend for a moment that introducing a similar system in the US is an election issue. I'd see that one as both social and economic because it helps the poor, the indigenous population and women, to name a few minority groups. And it's also an economic issue as paying for that system comes out of income taxes. Not to mention the whole preventative aspect of that system that's not happening in the US. Foreign policy's another issue entirely in that it doesn't fall under either umbrella...
While I try to stay out of the threads at DU that goes on about the Primary thing, I do have some opinions. One is that it's a weird system where the candidate who raises the most billion$ to campaign with is seen as a winner. I mean, imagine what those billions could do to make society a better place. Fix a few dodgy bits of infrastructure, raise the minimum wage to something slightly higher than a pittance, subsidise medications etc.
The other opinion is that there's a big hoo haa being made at DU about social and economic issues. If I didn't know any better I'd think that there's a democratic candidate who's not an advocate of social issues that are important to people on the Left. I'm pretty sure that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are very strong on social issues. So I don't get what all the fuss is about.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Part of the "social" emphasis is coming from those who are striving for party unity (particularly behind Hillary) but think economic issues will be divisive. Hillary has taken a strong stance on certain social issues: women's rights, gay marriage, immigration. At the end of the day she's still a New Dem when it comes to welfare, and she will triangulate to the right-ish middle to win the election.
I have to admit the way seabeyond dwells on this baffles me. seabeyond is a very strong feminist, though: perhaps protecting the Supremes really is THE most important thing as far as seabeyond is concerned.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)because it is not like i have not said the supreme crt is the most important issue of 2016, repeatedly. maybe? maybe i think it IS the most important in 2016? yes. you think? maybe. seeing as i clearly state it repeatedly, MAYBE you can take very simple language as a truth from me.
i have also explained WHY i think that the supreme crt is THE issue of 2016.
if you do not remember all the many reasons, let me know. i will take the time to once again, point out the MANY reasons WHY the supreme crt is the number ONE issue for me in 2016.
now, do you think you can at the least, give me the conviction that yes, i truly feel the supreme crt is THE most important issue of 2016?
i will take sanders or clinton for the supreme crt. that is not the argument here. if you need clarity on that issue, a totally separate issue, let me know. i will once again, put in the time, to explain.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)They decided to just make GWB president and stop counting votes, they think Monsato can do whatever they want, they don't think we need voter protections, they are fine with Citizens United destroying the election system.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)injustice to gays, to money in election, ....
supreme crt creates our laws we live by. they are there for decades. they are a part of our branch
another is state. we had better fuckin start paying attention to the state. cause repugs make huge ground road into our society, thru state. just seeing it as federal resolution, to be more like denmark does NOT cut it, when the repugs have the states.
not to mention, states laws are filtering to our supreme court.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)it's just your separation of social and economic issues seems a really strained way to put it.
What's confusing about the new generation of advocates for this argument is that it USED especially by elite white feminists to move their agenda forward while leaving other racial issues (which were perceived as "economic" before). But some of the arguments in this thread show there has been some sort of generational shift to flip this argument on its head, and now one reason to split the social from the economic is to explain the phenomenon of entitled poor white men. IMHO, making this argument isn't worth throwing away the economic progress elements of the Democratic platform, though. That's like handing those poor white men a political victory for the sake of academically theorizing about them.
Also, taking such a narrow view would also be sad if the Supremes turn out not to even be at issue during the next Presidency. Plus the President can't just dub someone a Supreme Court Justice: they have to make it through Congressional approval. The Democratic Party as a whole needs to reconnect with and start to represent the voters again. No matter who is President, they won't be very effective if they don't have Congress behind them.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)And a form of toxic racism at worst. It ignores the blood, sweat and tears of women, of PoC, of GBLT's who have fought decades for social justice. We fought for laws to be passed to ensure social justice, which included the right to not be discriminated against in whatever workplace, whatever workplace environment there is. Yet there is still discrimination. We still have an incredible amount of work to do. I'm an active Union member. I don't ignore economic justice, ever. It's worth noting that being "othered" in workplaces, whether that comes from race, gender or sexual orientation has been and continues to be a significant problem that impacts both social and economic justice for these populations.
I am, quite frankly appalled at the apparent lack of knowledge of social justice struggles as well as the lack of acknowledgment of how hard marginalized people have had to fight for basic human rights.
As far as the primary--I want a Democrat.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)That goes both ways, imo. I still don't get where universal healthcare sits in there for people who label every issue as one thing or the other, though. I'm probably weird like this, but when it comes to issues, I've never bothered to label them one or the other. Issues resonate with me and I pay attention to what the Labor Party's stance is, and if it's getting too close to what the conservatives are coming out with, I do what I did in the last election and vote for the Greens as a matter of principle.
I'm a union member as well. I've been in the same union since I first started working and they helped me out heaps back when I returned to work after maternity leave and found my job had been given to someone else and I'd been sidelined into a shit job many more miles away from home than my own job. They helped me get my job back and I've forever been in debt to them for that
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)(Sorry if I got that wrong)
How is life for the indigenous there?
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Indigenous Australians have been and still are very marginalised here. Things have improved over the years, but we're talking about improvement from the days of genocide and forcible removal of children to be adopted by white families. When it comes to health, life expectancy, incarceration rates, unemployment and poverty, indigenous Australians suffer from much higher rates (or lower when it comes to health and life expectancy) than the general population.
Improvements have happened when it comes to land rights and there was an official apology from a recent Labor government for the Stolen Generation and past mistreatment of indigenous Australians. There's a long way to go, though...
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)And experience America as a member of a marginalized group to really understand it. 
That said - It's not a Primary Issue.
It's been going on since 1994. Go back to the Contract On America ("with" actually but it felt like on) when the 1976 speech that Reagan gave in Mississippi finally came to fruition.
This isn't something that's a 'thing' just because Warren and Sanders said so. Back in 1994 when Warren was still a rabid Republican - it was minorities, women, gay men and women who heard the alarms. But as long as middle class white guys were okay - no one cared.
Now that they aren't okay - they have this 'awakening' of the spirit and we're all over here like -
You guys - this ain't nothing new. You aren't new. Stop acting like it.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I mean, we do have marginalised groups, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders being by far the most marginalised, and I was sitting here thinking of issues that have and still are important to them, like land rights, the Stolen Generation, investigating aboriginal deaths in custody, and other things like that. Each of those issues were something that the Left fought with them for and each issue was one the Right fought against. As a woman, I don't know anything about being discriminated against compared to indigenous Australians.
But, yeah. Things are different here than over there and I'm never going to live in the US, let alone live there as part of a marginalised group.
I do wish universal healthcare was a massive issue in the next US election, though. You guys deserve far better than what you've got even though Obamacare's a step in the right direction
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)I'm 42 - if I live into my 80's - I think we will see it then.
I also think in my life time we will see a second round of Isolationism - and that's how we will get there. We focus too much outwards and not enough in our own back yards. When the Gen Exers and Millenials run things (we are inherently selfish groups in America) we'll see that shift.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)There's been times at DU when the issues come up and I've read posts and just felt so guilty that I'll never have to take out a loan or mortgage my house to get medical treatment.
Heh, I'm a Gen Xer and I'm pretty selfish too so that must be a universal thing. I'm looking forward to the time when baby boomers aren't running things and there's some new blood in there to change the way things are
Number23
(24,544 posts)Even when you aren't even being all that nice.
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)
I'm just keeping it real!
Number23
(24,544 posts)black people??!" thing. And "you" would be me in this case because I am not ever as nice as you are. 
Because you know we aren't allowed to be individuals and my Universal Negro Thought Radar has been in the shop for a few weeks now.
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)I am.
It's just I have vision - and the rest of the world is wearing bi-focals. 
randys1
(16,286 posts)equal, or that your concerns are equal?
No, really.
You know you were happier and better off in the 50's when all the rules were made by us white folks, dont you?
Very few of you back then rioted, if any of you.
Most of you were afraid to break the law because you knew what would happen if you did.
And once in a while, sure, you had to be lynched when you started to get out of line, but you NEEDED that just like today you NEED to be told by white libertarians that while your issues are important, THEIRS are maybe more so.
The same people that have kept you down for 200 years are finally keeping them down, so watch out, they have a mission now, you better believe it.
Oh, and anytime you want to know what Martin Luther King Jr was all about, just ask a white libertarian, they are the experts, after all.
If the mention of lynching harms the feelings of anybody around here, before you tell me that is in the past, dont.
It is not.
Just google it and find out for yourself.
Number23
(24,544 posts)stupidest crap in an effort to get me to stop posting. Or -- even more precious and adorable - trying to "school" me on shit they could not make more obvious that they know absolutely nothing about. 
Oh, and anytime you want to know what Martin Luther King Jr was all about, just ask a white libertarian, they are the experts, after all.
Oh my God. We have been talking about this for years in the AA forum. I was saying to one clued in white poster just a few weeks ago that nothing, absolutely NOTHING, heralds some brain breaking, scream inducing foolishness on this board quicker and faster than "in the words of Martin Luther King..." 
randys1
(16,286 posts)White privilege includes the right to be ignorant of other people's condition and history but to pretend that we know it all.
Number23
(24,544 posts)"educate" as you chase after people that have actually lived every second of every day the experience that you don't have the first mother flipping clue about.
And get mad as hell when these same people ignore you as a courtesy, and then get indignant when they stop ignoring you in order to tell you that if you are going to keep inserting yourself and trying to "educate" people about issues you know nothing about, then just fuck off.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)whites are getting shot in the back for walking?
here is the thing. you are demanding, insisting, repeatedly saying, white men are on the same level playing field as blacks, women and gays.
that is wrong.
it is offensive
it is dismissive
it is creating a solution with the wrong information
and you wonder WHY sj people are pissed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And bigotry has done more damage than I can ever imagine. No dismissiveness intended.
But they've been left with nothing(like all other working folks) in endless rounds of layoffs and job offshoring. They've hsad pensions stolen from them through corporate bankruptcy proceedings(like the rest of the working class). And they've been among the many who never had adequate healthcare and housing-and been poor and even homeless as well.
They haven't had your exact pain, but they have had their own suffering. And what I'm calling for is common cause between all those who are hurting...not for anyone to swallow their pain and give up their own fight.
It's just about working together for justice for all.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the minimal, as you state you want unity, acknowledge facts, so we can unify. do not call me a wedge issue. that leaves me outside your circle. do not tell a black a poor white person is in the same place as he is, cause the white man will never be in the smae place, while we have this unlevel field.
do not tell me economic will take care of social because they are intertwined. i KNOW that to be a platitude and incorrect. i haev given you examples, clear examples how that is not true.
you want to truly address an issue, and find a solution, you have to IDENTIFY the problem. not present falsehoods as a basis to problem solving.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the OP of this thread rejects the idea that "economic will take care of social" I'm puzzled that you don't seem to think that economic issues equally affect those affected by bigotry. Economic issues affect everyone.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am not making it up
why are you ignoring the points i make, that are easily researched in this thread, to deny me the facts we are discussing?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Linking economic and social justice, as Dr. King was killed for doing, is about fighting both types of injustice. It has never been about saying that things like fighting police violence against blacks isn't tops on the agenda.
Both matter. Both directly affect, in many cases, the same people.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That would be really stupid.
What I said was that economic and social justice, while not identical, are connected.
And I never meant to say that working class whites had it exactly as bad as women, LGBTQ people, and poc. Just that there were areas of common ground on which coalition can be built.
Your experience is your experience, and I've never meant to deny it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 01:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Incorporating economic justice never means abandoning the struggle against bigotry, and it certainly doesn't mean assuming that struggle is over.
All I'm saying is that there's no conflict between the two, and that there is never a time when the struggle against oppression is worth abandoning the equally important struggle and austerity, economic inequality and corporate control of life-the two struggles are interlinked.
As to feminism, I'm not saying anything here that Bella Abzug wasn't saying.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Not creating strawmen would be one step in the direction. Allowing social justice to be a part of election 2016 would be another step in the right direction
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I condemn anybody who would try to do that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when i actually see you and the others that make this statement, call out the people doing it, then i will settle.
but, language like, ..... i am a mere wedge issue, or we are all oppressed the same and equality, is not calling it out. it is participating in it. so maybe you need a greater understanding before you can begin to be an ally calling it out. cause right now, i am calling your shit out....
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)first and actually better form of what we now call ENDA. Employment Non Discrimination Act. This was the first piece of 'pro gay' legislation offered in the US Congress and it is of course a jobs issue, purely economic objectives being sought. As you might know, ENDA has not passed both houses of any Congress. Bella is dead, so's Ed Koch her co-sponsor. So's ENDA.
So the thing is, when straight white folks want to preach about these issues, they need to do so mindfully and fully informed. I'd be really impressed with a straight white person pressing to pass ENDA, I've never seen one of them in the wild aside from Senator Merkely.
So we don't see y'all pushing for equality for say, the last 40 years give or take, but we do see these posts in which you try to tell us all about what we have been doing for the last 40 years or so.
Read this speech of Harvey's. Know that 'CDC' means California Democratic Committee, not Centers for Disease Control. Jarvis-Gann is Prop 13, about property taxes.
"What we must do is make sure that 1978 continues the movement that is really happening that the media don't want you to know about. That is the movement to the left. It's up to CDC to put the pressures on Sacramento--but to break down the walls and the barriers so the movement to the left continues and progress continues in the nation. We have before us coming up several issues we must speak out on. Probably the most important issue outside the Briggs--which we will come to--but we do know what will take place this June. We know there's an issue on the ballot called Jarvis-Gann. We hear the taxpayers talk about it on both sides. But what you don't hear is that it's probably the most racist issue on the ballot in a long time. In the city and county of San Francisco, if it passes and we indeed have to lay off people, who will they be? The last in, and the first in, and who are the last in but the minorities? Jarvis-Gann is a racist issue. We must address that issue. We must not talk away from it. We must not allow them to talk about the money it's going to save, because look at who's going to save the money and who's going to get hurt.
We also have another issue that we've started in some of the north counties and I hope in some of the south counties it continues. In San Francisco elections we're asking--at least we hope to ask-- that the U.S. government put pressure on the closing of the South African consulate. That must happen. There is a major difference between an embassy in Washington which is a diplomatic bureau. and a consulate in major cities. A consulate is there for one reason only -- to promote business, economic gains, tourism, investment. And every time you have business going to South Africa, you're promoting a regime that's offensive."
http://www.danaroc.com/guests_harveymilk_122208.html
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've always said the same thing.
We do need more of them backing ENDA(I think Bernie does, and if he doesn't he damn well should.
Please believe me that nothing in my OP or any of my other posts in this thread was ever intended
as a claim that all or even most of the anti-oppression battles have been fought and won.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Berie has never, ever wallowed in this mire so many on DU want to get stuck in, this trope that the rights of humans can be divided up into neat piles for 'economics' and 'social issues'. He's never done that. Don't try to hang that on Bernie.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I sounded indefinite because I realized I didn't actually know what his position on ENDA was for sure.
And the intent of the OP was to reject the idea that social and economic justice were separate spheres or that people shohuld be divided by which struggle they were involved in. They aren't identical but they are related, and each conditions the other.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I said that the figures I listed expanded the struggle for justice(without abandoning their original focus).
Nothing in my OP was intended to express the notion that any of those I listed decided the issues they had started with were now resolved and some sort of human rights Utopia achieved.
The struggle against systems of oppression goes on...and economic inequality is one of those forms of systemic oppression.
Truly, I have no idea how anything I put in the OP came across to you as meaning I thought the U.S. was now an oppression-free zone. That was so not my intent, and I feel horrible that that interpretation even came to anyone's mind.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we not be told it is minor issues, ect...
it is not those talking about social issues, trying to have it one way. economics hits at 2-4 in my priority.
it is people on the side of economic populism that has told us we are insignificant, minor, or ours will come once we get economic equality.
so thank you, for suggesting to your fellow champions that we all be included in this election.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You have every right to be here on our own terms, and no one should ever tell you that what you care about doesn't matter.
Hopefully, at some point you'll gain the sense of trust in others here and their intentions that you don't currently feel.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with scorn and mockery about me are not allowed, ... maybe at some point i will gain a sense of trust i am not being told to shut the fuck up, and allowed to sit at the table with the adults.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it isn't Bernie or his campaign doing that, either.
What place does HRC offer you?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)say
that MIGHT be a starting point, ya think?
i SUPPORT sanders.
i know i have said and proven that repeatedly. but that one little piece of info seems to be elusive for you all as you demand explanation from me.
when you say i am a wedge issue, you shoved me aside. words matter.
when you say white men are as oppressed, you have shoved me, blacks and gays aside.
words matter.
for me, right now, it is not about sanders or clinton.
for me, right now, it is du democrats telling me, social does not matter, in a number of ways. which i continually, and in the future will continue, to call out.
YOU and others keep taking it to sanders. you and others keeping insisting i am dissing the man, before he has even begun his campaign, and i have NO idea how he is going to run
because i simple point out, wallstreet/banks/corporations are addressing middle/uppermiddle class, whites, and males concerns is not dissing sanders. it is pointing out a simple truth.
why? are you and others so afraid of truth. why? must we coddle and protect sanders in a nontruth? i do not think he is that weak and vulnerable. i think he is quite capable. i think we can have a conversation about a campaign that is addressing wallstreet/corporations/banks, without fear.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just that social isn't all that matters. just as economic isn't all that matters.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"No one should tell you that social doesn't matter."
no they should not be telling me, hence me arguing on du so much the last month.
yes they are telling me
and no, hte people have populist group that continually tell me no one should say this, .... do not call out their peers that say this. also, they use language doing just that and refuse to acknowledge it. so....
how seriously can i take your statement
No one should tell you that social doesn't matter.
they have, they do, and they will in the future
and i will call it out
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)do ANYTHING, but recognize the fact, we are dealing on an unlevel playing field. and THAT is too hard for too many in this conversation.
you say we are there at the table, yet you cannot accept a basic premise.
we want nothing... cause whether sanders or clinton, we will work on social. you do not even have to do shit.
all we are asking is do not present falsehoods as fact. do not get in our way.
that .... THAT would be taking care of both. you can take care of the middle class, white, and male, .... and we will work on the UNlevel playing field.
we cannot even get that fuckin acknowledgment.
and you wonder about the frustrations?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's made uneven in some respects by bigotry, and in others by class.
But in acknowledging the unevenness, we also have to acknowledge at least some(not all, but some)areas of common ground, areas which are the basis for coalition and for victory against all forms of oppression, social and economic.
That's all I'm saying, and it was never about denying our pain or rejecting the validity of your rage.
We are not the same, but we can work together. And ultimately, we have to.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bullshit out. we wonder how such blatant bigotry survives and grows in this country to the point of black men, womens, gays deaths.....
we have an excellent example of it here on du, a progressive democratic board. it is very discouraging. but it is not something any of us can walk away from
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and accusing me of denying things I've never denied.
You have no reason to think I'd ever deny that there are massive injustices done to women, LGBTQ people, people of color.
You have no reason to think Bernie Sanders would deny that, either.
I support social and economic justice for all.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #125)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)have tissy fits and call us trolls and other names, even start whole threads to insult, ridicule, scorn and mock, if social justice dares to speak out.
that would be a point for you to understand how little you and yours values, respects or wishes to participate with social justice
you think?
so if people do not buy your sincerity, there may be a legitimate reason why.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I do think you see enemies where you have none.
You and I are on the same side...it is sad that you can't see that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)And then you flip it to me being sad cause I just do not see we are on the same side. Regardless of all of us being repeatedly told we are not on same side.
You might look up gas lighting and consider the definition
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Nor is starting this thread somehow insulting, ridiculing, scorning and mocking you. But when it comes to accusing people of trolling, I saw a thread a few weeks ago where you were high fiving someone who was calling a long-term DUer a troll. Maybe if you don't like being accused of trolling, lead by example?
I do buy Ken's sincerity. He's been nothing but civil to you and didn't deserve this spray you gave him.
As for this economic/social thing, I don't give a shit about labelling the things that are important to me. As a single mum who was dependent on some government assistance for a few years, what was important to me was that the benefits I was receiving weren't cut to shreds, that when I returned to work there was affordable childcare, and that our healthcare system (which is far superior to that of the US) wasn't tampered with in an attempt to eat away at it till there was nothing left. Why should I have cared whether these were social or economic issues? I didn't and still don't and think these attempts to divide issues up like this are incredibly divisive...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)troll, right? fuckin strawman before we began
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I'll even bold the bit where you aimed it directly at Ken: 'it is amazing the number of these threads you and yours for economic justice throws up, yet....have tissy fits and call us trolls and other names, even start whole threads to insult, ridicule, scorn and mock, if social justice dares to speak out.'
You should have read further. See, I was hoping somewhat optimistically that you'd listen to the experience of a single mother and how I felt about issues that were important to me back when I was really struggling to get by. It might just be me, but I thought the bulk of my post about that would have been far more important and worth discussing than anything else.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You would go fucking CRAZY if anyone said "tissy fits" to a woman.
You crack me the fuck up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Tell me ken, how is that not an issue for economic justice populists? How is that not more evidence for you, us being told social us insignificant by economics?
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I know Ken and Sabrina have both said very clearly that both things are intertwined.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Please link to any thread where anyone has said anything remotely like that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and you refuse to acknowledge it. so, i will say, you are one.
and i am done
and please, do not entice me to another thread of you wanting unity and understanding, because i see, you are not sincere.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I simply reject the idea that you have to choose between what you call social issues and what you call economic issues. They tie together. And they don't conflict.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)They've both said very clearly that both social and economic issues are intertwined, yet you've repeatedly claimed they said otherwise. This is why other DUers ask you for links to where people have said that social issues don't matter, and I guess based on this thread it's why they never get given a link to back up those claims.
It's pretty clear that to most DUers social and economic issues are closely related and very few DUers think one should prevail at the expense of another. Yr actually the first one I've encountered who takes issue with anyone saying that both are very important.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)"We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
But he was very much a civil rights leader and I'm not sure why you feel so confident that he was killed for both. James Earl Ray was an open racist and had talked about killing Martin Luther King for racist reasons.
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)They didn't want us to vote - and it was segregation forever.
Anyone who does not get how important the SCOTUS is in 2016 and 2020 - and how fragile voting rights are for in particular - black Americans - is being willfully ignorant.
Folks who want to focus on the South as a civil rights venue are nuts.
It was Philadelphia and to some degree Pittsburgh that were our danger points in 2012. There's more than enough info out there on it for anyone who cares - but that was a 'court battle'. It was a simple voter id card (poll tax issue).
They - the Right - are playing games that if we don't secure the equality at the polls of those who WILL look out for working class white men . . .
It's game over.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)are being eroded away with the SCOTUS we have. I can't even imagine a SCOTUS with one more Republican appointment and one fewer Democratic appointment.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The current context of economic globalization, increasing militarization of the society and armed conflicts, the retrenchment of the social welfare system and growing social and economic inequality between, and within, countries underscores the importance of an approach to social work practice based on social justice and human rights. In this article, we examine the concepts of social and economic justice and address some of the dilemmas and challenges facing social workers in both Canada and the USA as they promote the fulfilment of human needs and address human rights in exploitative situations. The concepts of social and economic jus-tice and human rights are interconnected yet distinct.
Social justice is defined in this article according to
The Social Work Dictionary
(Barker, 2003: 404–5) as: ‘An ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same basic rights, protection, opportunities,obligations, and social benefits A key social work value, social justice entails advocacy to confront discrimination, oppression,and institutional inequities.
’Economic justice is a narrower concept, referring to the standard of living that ideally should be equitable. All persons ought to have opportunities for meaningful work and an income that provides them with adequate food, shelter and a level of living that contri-butes to good health. Whereas social and economic justice is a general term that relates to society in general, human rights is a term that, from the point of view of the people, refers to specific universal standards relevant to freedom and well-being, personal and collective right
http://www.academia.edu/485556/Social_and_economic_justice_human_rights_and_peace
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)But part of that requires people be willing to examine the extent to which their political priorities are shaped by their own experiences, which includes class, race, gender, and sexuality.
It would help if people would stop insulting those whose priorities differ, particularly when they are concerned about the struggles of the subaltern. It would also help if people who stop hearkening back to some ideal past of the Democratic party, when the part in fact supported Jim Crow at the time. Look forward, not back. History can be instructive. Unfortunately, many people are far too selective in their use of it, likely because they were taught very conservative approaches to political history--the great man version that focuses on presidents and the like to the exclusion of people's movements.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And people's movements should never be excluded.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)insurance companies, calling for universal health care and action on AIDS, this event was organized by ACT UP, a group that started in NYC. Their first action ever took part on Wall Street targeting the financial, insurance and especially pharmaceutical industries, the posters said 'No More Business As Usual' and the day ended with mass arrests, but not nearly as many as there were on subsequent, yearly Wall St demonstrations.
So what it is you think you are teaching me here today? You need to take this message to your 'populist' cohort on DU, they are very confused people. In addition, any valid progressive populism will very actively include all people and avoid all hint of right wing populism, progressive populists do not need to be coaxed into supporting 'social issues' they come with those issues leading, if only to make sure everyone knows they are not just Mike Huckabee on a field trip to DU. The actual history of populism in the US creates a context in which progressive populism must define itself as progressive without reservation. If they do not, they will not gain the trust of minority voters. It's that simple, and without the minority voters, they don't have a movement. Deny the history at your own peril. It is white straight progressive populists who need the rest of us. The rest of us have each other and do not really need y'all. We want you to join up, but we will not be taking the back seats for you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't share their views and would never intentionally dismiss anti-oppression politics.
I've worked with a lot of LGBTQ people on many left issues. They are second to none in their commitment to the causes of economic justice as well as social justice.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)Second - I think that was a group - the folks that were the money behind 'Act Up' that my parents were heavy donors too. I'll have to ask my mom (dad passed away in 2011) - but I know that Harvey Milk really 'awakened' my mixed race parents to what was happening to another group of 'others' around the time we moved back to the US from West Germany. My dad had a 'consipiracy theory' that the Fed Gov had given it to the gay male population - but he in general thought Reagan was a sick s.o.b. who was capable of that. You have to put him in that time/place and finding out just how awful the Rainbow of Agents (Orange, blue, pink, white, green) were - and it wasn't beyond the pale to him that Human Beings were being experimented on in the worst way possible.
Just a side note - because I thought you might like to know that 30/35 years ago - you weren't alone. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You just brought it all!
And the angst you smell is the clawing of some recognizing that the privilege that has served them so well is evaporating before their eyes.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I look at his before & after the civil rights legislation. After that was accomplished he came out against publicly the Vietnam war leading to hit pieces already calling him a failure to his cause, the "Two Americas" speech and the night he was killed at a Memphis Sanitation Workers rally which is suspicious because there was FBI agent provocateurs pretending to be protesters committing violence, they had a direct relationship with the media who was portraying the bosses as fair, calm, rational while protesters were unruly, out-of-control, senseless the violence for the media to obsess over which was his non-violence approach in a nutshell. It wasn't simply nonviolence for the sake of nonviolence but no doubt violence was his thing but his position was if there were violence would media would obsess over that than the reasons for the anger that led to the protests in the first place. This was all going on before he showed up there.
I don't know what really happened but I'd certainly like to know the truth but a charismatic populist is who the dark forces fear the most -- Che Guevara threatened the whole CIA program -- Motorcycle Diaries is from his journeys around Southern America I'm not sure if "doctor" is the official word be he was quite competent & qualified as a medical working going all over providing care and got a really good luck and the differences -- it is an injustice -- civil rights & all of that was very related & they are both related when virtually leave behind a section of population -- the areas of concentrated poverty in major American cities such as Chicago. Politics is so driven by the now that there problems that handled by choosing to ignore them leading to reality consequences for those policies. Could you imagine where we'd be if people like that were still around?
Overall though the are very related and part of the right idea of fairness, equality, etc. I want equal opportunity for everyone, policies that benefit most Americans not enabling exploitation & abuse by the rich which was what the problems are with that. Labor abuse is very horrific & rampant on a global scale all to make an extra dollar. Its all related. Racism is a big part of the scapegoats & the ability to get away with it -- politically. The economic ills are blamed on immigrants or whoever, divide & conquer have everyone fighting each other rather than the person with the bag of money.