Ta-Nehisi Coates, Bernie Sanders, and Reparations

[nyabingi]

I have found The Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates to be a good writer with a solid grasp of issues dealing with Black America and I haven't found too much of his content very disagreeable until I ran across this piece.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/

He's actually attacking Bernie Sanders for saying he wouldn't be in favor of reparations! I couldn't believe the name of the piece so I actually had to read it again (and the article) to make sure I wasn't imagining this. Yep, he sure is. He's actually attacking Bernie Sanders for saying he's not in favor of reparations. Let me say that I'm not at all surprised that ANY presidential contender would say they are FOR reparations because it has long been a discussion that evokes strong passions on either side, and probably not a discussion that a serious contender would want to have during an election year. But why the focus of Bernie Sanders at this time and place?

I question Ta-Nehisi's motivations and objectives, especially considering the timing of his hit piece. The Democratic candidates are traveling across South Carolina right now trying to garner support from the Black population there, and Ta-Nehisi throws this at Bernie, apparently as food-for-thought to all the Black people who may be swayed away from supporting Hillary Clinton. Why not write a piece asking why Hillary Clinton does or doesn't support reparations, or Martin O'Malley? Who is TNC working for? If he is not a closeted surrogate for the Clinton campaign, then surely he is trying to put his best foot forward as a potential?

Ta-Nehisi, let's get real. You're not even going to get president Obama or hardly any Black person in a position of power to state publicly that they support reparations - there aren't many John Conyers types remaining in Washington. Many of them have sold their souls and passions to the lords of corporatism and job security. So why try to hold Bernie Sanders to this standard? It is a baffling attack and highly suspicious in my opinion. I don't think the majority of Black voters are basing their support for a candidate on whether or not they support reparations, so what's behind the attack? TNC doesn't really explain his motivation and we are left to guess.

Read through the article and I'm interested in hearing some opinions on this. For the record, I am and have always been strongly in favor of reparations, reparations that would necessarily include land and a great, if not complete, degree of autonomy as a starter.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Before reading the piece, I will say ...

the conspiracy theory gene is strong in Camp Bernie.

[jonestonesusa]

105. Why do you say that?

And is the same question about reparations posed to every candidate? If not, why is Sanders singled out? What's your theory?

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. Because in some quarters, anything unflattering towards a certian candidate ...

is seen as a coordinated partisan attack on that candidate.

And is the same question about reparations posed to every candidate? If not, why is Sanders singled out? What's your theory?

I will defer to the author of the piece on that question ... I believe he answered those exact questions, plainly, specifically, and clearly.

[Recursion]

130. And, LITERALLY IN AS MANY WORDS

[Empowerer]

164. You'd have to actually read the piece to know that . . .

And it seems that most of the people who are responding to it so hysterically didn't bother to read it - it's enough that the headline suggested that it wasn't a valentine to Sanders.

[jonestonesusa]

177. I read the piece. It's not a lengthy or difficult read.

Nothing hysterical about my response. I simply disagree with its premises. It cherry picks one white Democratic politician and makes rather obvious observations about Sanders' statements about reparations. Boiler plate nationalism in my opinion.

[stevenleser]

197. Because it holds him to his own standards. Just like when a Republican politician says they are

for "family values" and they castigate everyone else who has had an affair and then it turns out he has had affairs of his own.

I don't really care that he had an affair, but I will attack his hypocrisy.

On every other issue, Bernie is about casting aside political realities, polls, the composition of congress, etc. All except reparations.

He and his supporters tell folks like me not to worry about how difficult it seems to me it would be to get single payer passed through the Ryan led GOP House of Representatives for instance. I'm criticized for being pessimistic at best and cowardly at worst.

But with reparations all of a sudden Sanders is this reasonable pragmatist.

That's why its not cherry picking.

[1StrongBlackMan]

200. Thank you. This only seems to be difficult to understand ...

Based on one's level of support for a particular candidate, and seemingly, regardless of one's racial self-description.

[comradebillyboy]

202. I will say amen to that...

[tishaLA]

2. As I have repeatedly said in the post about this in GDP...

He's not "attacking" Sen Sanders over anything other than his rhetorical stance, which is most often about revolution, but n the case of reparations, is about pragmatism. Reparations are absolutely unlikely. We all know that. It has the support of none of the people running for president from either party. We all know that. But Sen Sanders says we can accomplish a political revolution that will result in universal health care, free public universities, etc. So why not reparations?

Is it because they are expensive? Is that different from free public universities or universal health care? In what way?

I also think questioning Mr Coates' motives, when he has long advocated reparations, is a nonstarter. The truth is that he would never reasonably expect Secretary Clinton or Gov O'Malley to support reparations, but those are not candidates who talk about revolution and structural change, either.

[nyabingi]

26. Well, I think TNC and many others

really need to be honest about what and who Bernie Sanders really is and not let the words "democratic socialist" confuse them.

Bernie's ideas, in my opinion, are not really what I'd consider radical ones at all, especially for a person who labels themselves a socialist. Things like universal healthcare, heavier regulations on financial institutions, a more people-centered outlook in terms of what is being presented as legislation, etc., are not really that radical and are not beyond the realm of feasibility in terms of seeing them passed into law, especially if Washington politicians are receiving considerable pressure from the public. Bernie is neither a leftist or a Black nationalist and he really hasn't presented himself as such. In fact, Bernie's understanding of foreign events and the United States' role in the world is pretty center to center-right because he's not fundamentally against the idea of militarism and freedom for peoples living under the shadow of the Pentagon. He's not a radical, period.

I think Mr. Coates understands very well that Bernie is not a "let's talk about reparations" leftist just as he probably understands that Bernie is not a "let's support the BDS movement" supporter in terms of Israel (things people who are actually "radical" would have no problem supporting). Coates is using Bernie's self-identification of "socialist" as an excuse to hold him to a standard he hasn't required of other people running.

[wildeyed]

78. Yes, it's the logical inconsistency of his position that Coates points out.

But to admit that makes the entire narrative of Sanders as pure and revolutionary fall apart, and that is key to his appeal to many supporters.

I have no problem with politicians being politicians. What I don't like is politicians being politicians but saying they are something else. It is like someone saying, I think NFL football is brutal and violent. I hate the game and it is the players fault! No. The players play the game. Some play dirtier than they have to, but at the end of the day, it is a highly competitive game that demands a certain level of brutality just to win. Don't like it? Change the rules or go play tennis Clinton and O'Malley admit that they play football, so no one expects that reparations are on the table with them.

And Coates motives are to bring reparations into the public conversation. I can't believe that he is really that excited by any of these politicians. But he is savvy enough to understand the game, and knows how to play pretty well himself. At least it appears that way to me.

[tishaLA]

82. I just love everything you post.

that is all.

[wildeyed]

84. That is such a nice thing to say!

Just when I think that DU is irredeemable I enjoy your posts too.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

196. I do, too!

[jonestonesusa]

106. I disagree for a few reasons with Coates.

Revolution is a word with many meanings, and one way that the Sanders campaign is revolutionary is relying on small contributions for a presidential campaign. While this might not seem at first like a big deal, I live in Wisconsin where lobbyists like the Koch Brothers are literally writing legislation that becomes law. It is revolutionary in my view to get rid of that odious influence over policy.

I also think it's revolutionary to advocate, as Sanders does, taxing hedge funds and putting the money into a free college fund. Just like public K12 was revolutionary at one time, greatly increasing literacy and empowerment.

It is Coates opinion that Sanders rhetorical approach is flawed if he doesn't support reparations. I support reparations myself, but it's not a cure all for systemic racism. Just as compensation for Japanese internment or the various concessions on treaty rights, etc. following after genocide against first nations didn't eliminate the problem of racism. It's too deep of a problem for one politician to solve. So, I think that Coates is off base to say that college for all, Medicare for all, and getting the money train managed in politics is not revolutionary. These changes would be massive and certainly would move beyond what Clinton and her corporate supporters are offering.

[wildeyed]

127. I live in NC

and as a result, probably know as much as you about how Kochs and their affiliates influence politics on the state level. More, perhaps, since I was heavily involved in grass roots campaign finance reform and voter education activism for more than a decade and as a result understand what ACTUALLY works. Pro tip: A politician relying on small donations won't fix it. That is just empty rhetorical talk, probably worse than a bandaid because it confuses the issue.

Sanders rhetorical approach is flawed. That is the entire point of Coates' article. That and to continue the dialog on reparations and the true history of white supremacy in the USA and to point out that nearly the ENTIRE white liberal left has a blind spot the size of El Capitan on the subject.

It was not an attack on Bernie Sanders. It was not supportive of Clinton or O'Malley. It was not meant to encompass any of the other points you tossed out to confuse the issue.

Want to talk about whether reparations is an adequate remedy or if there are other, better choices? Fine, start a thread. Let's have an honest dialog. But I am sick of talking about Bernie Sanders now.

[jonestonesusa]

185. Thanks for your service in working on grass roots campaigns and finance reform.

This work is needed, constantly, in every state, NC and WI included. I know that many of us on DU are engaged in similar work, as I have done as well.

It's an open discussion board, so I get to choose for myself how to respond - after all, both Sanders and reparations are mentioned in the OP. All the same, I'll respect your preference to close the conversation.

[MADem]

138. What you're saying though sounds a lot like "some revolutionary ideas (like the ones the white

people are clamoring for) are 'better' or 'more important' or 'more worth discussing' than other revolutionary ideas."

That may not be what you intend to say, but that is how it comes across.

Black people are tired of getting caged into shitty neighborhoods, given crappy loan opportunities with high interest rates, being last hired/first fired, and having to deal with racist police who will kill them as soon as look at them .... and white people want "free college" and UHC as their FIRST priority.

One would assume that reparations would not just be about a check, but about rectifying those issues I have articulated.

But here's the real bottom line.

Congress isn't going to pass ANY of that shit. If states want to do it (and some have given a few 'free college' opportunities at community college--for the 'smart kids') they can, but don't expect Congress to sign on to any of Bernie's pipe dreams. There will be no UHC. There will be no "free college for all."

Thus, if his campaign is all about pie in the sky, about dreaming about things that might be, but are impossibilities in the near or even medium term.... why not some of that sweet potato pie, too? Why doesn't he advocate for the people whose slave labor and economic marginalization formed, and continued to form into the 20th Century, the foundation of this nation? Even after Emancipation, black labor came at BARGAIN prices.

#BLM had it right with regard to this guy. His issues and concerns are aimed smack dab at white people. Even his latest AD has that vibe:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10806582/bernie-sanders-america

[uponit7771]

157. +1

[Empowerer]

166. MWAH!

[jonestonesusa]

178. So if UHC is unrealistic aren't reparations unrealistic too?

Should we avoid advocating change that isn't supported by Republicans?

Any legislation needs popular support and a winning political strategy. Many of the left positions advocated by Sanders and others are supported by a majority nationally. However, the tendency it seems is that Republicans are more successful at getting controversial and sometimes unpopular legislation passed. I think at times they are more determined and strategic, to the detriment of the country. I do believe that Sanders wants to build an effective left coalition, and the idea of a popular movement for left of center change is a good direction if you ask me. I think the word revolution is overused, bordering on a cliche, but it's politics. Cliches happen.

I support Sanders on some of the items such as UHC, free college, and campaign finance because these items would be beneficial broadly for the people's lives. I didn't hear them in the national conversation much until this campaign and I hope they get traction through their increased visibility. I get Coates' point on reparations, which isn't a hard point to get. And I actually do think that people, including white people in the case of Sanders, will choose and act on what they think is revolutionary. No one owns that word, and there are a lot of systematic issues that need revolutionary action, including the issue of racism, which is extraordinarily complex and lacking any single fix. Meanwhile, having access to health care and college would benefit everyone.

I am willing to support a politician who works for these goals, which among others, is Bernie Sanders. I respect others to make different choices, of course. I just think Coates is overly dismissive of the potential of the Sanders campaign to bring about impactful change.

[MADem]

188. You are completely missing TNC's point. You need to read his essay.

You CLEARLY have not read it, based on your comments. Or if you have, you've missed the key take-away. This discussion is not ABOUT Republicans (and besides, it's a little late to expect Sanders to take back his entire candidate's platform).

Here is the link. Read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/

For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”

Sanders is a lot of things, many of them good. But he is not the candidate of moderation and unification, so much as the candidate of partisanship and radicalism. There is neither insult nor accolade in this. John Brown was radical and divisive. So was Eric Robert Rudolph. Our current sprawling megapolis of prisons was a bipartisan achievement. Obamacare was not. Sometimes the moral course lies within the politically possible, and sometimes the moral course lies outside of the politically possible. One of the great functions of radical candidates is to war against equivocators and opportunists who conflate these two things. Radicals expand the political imagination and, hopefully, prevent incrementalism from becoming a virtue.

Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy. The calls for community policing, body cameras, and a voting-rights bill with pre-clearance restored— all are things that Hillary Clinton agrees with. And those positions with which she might not agree address black people not so much as a class specifically injured by white supremacy, but rather, as a group which magically suffers from disproportionate poverty. .... Sanders’s anti-racist moderation points to a candidate who is not merely against reparations, but one who doesn’t actually understand the argument. To briefly restate it, from 1619 until at least the late 1960s, American institutions, businesses, associations, and governments—federal, state, and local—repeatedly plundered black communities. Their methods included everything from land-theft, to red-lining, to disenfranchisement, to convict-lease labor, to lynching, to enslavement, to the vending of children. So large was this plunder that America, as we know it today, is simply unimaginable without it. Its great universities were founded on it. Its early economy was built by it. Its suburbs were financed by it. Its deadliest war was the result of it.....

If you still don't take the point, maybe this will help:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/21/white_people_just_dont_get_it_bernie_sanders_ta_nehisi_coates_and_the_reality_of_reparations/


Look, Sanders puts himself out there as the "At least TRY" candidate. But he's only willing to "at least TRY" to prosecute white-friendly ideas. He won't take on a "white supremacy" issue like reparations, or any kind of acknowledgement that black people have gotten a raw deal--not just the "slavery" thing, either--we're talking about renting an apartment TODAY, getting a home loan TODAY, getting a car note TODAY, having to deal with that police TODAY. AGAIN--like I said, "free college" and UHC are WAY down that list.

Yet Sanders--the "revolutionary" -- doesn't want to touch that difficult, black people shit. There's no "at least TRY"ing when it comes to black and brown people. It's sit down, shut up, get in line, and my economic high tide will lift your boat...eventually (though you'll be LAST lifted, and first dumped in the brink).

[MADem]

141. What's "impractical and very divisive" (Sanders' words) is Sanders' selective outrage.

Not articles from white people talking down to black people about what's 'best' for them and how they should just hush up and feel that Bern.

smh!

And again, you miss Coates' overarching point--that if this fellow is an actual revolutionary, he should propose revolutionary ideas--not just the white-friendly ones he has cherry picked. His ideas--every freaking one of them-- are equally "impractical" and "very divisive"--in case you haven't noticed the number of times the GOP has tried to repeal ANY healthcare for Americans, AT ALL.

Here--let the WAPO explain it to you:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/21/bernie-sanders-reparations-problem/

Sanders recently came out against reparations for slavery, which he described as impractical and “very divisive.” Coates responded that, in light of the candidate’s other fanciful policy proposals, it was peculiar he would require realistic thinking on this issue.

“Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy,” Coates wrote.

He added: “If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations … then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children.”

The goalposts have moved considerably in the century between Du Bois’s activism and Coates’s. Du Bois was fighting overt racism within the American socialist movement; Coates is criticizing what he perceives as racial indifference in a candidate who identifies as a democratic socialist.

[jonestonesusa]

182. I don't agree that free college and universal health care are "white-friendly"

for a couple of reasons. If health care and college education were available to all, black people would also benefit from them. Also, plenty of white people are against these ideas, so to say that they're cherry picked to be "white friendly" doesn't stand up. You and Coates are doing a lot of either-or racial framing, based on a single response from Sanders on a single issue (reparations). I would agree that there's racism in the Democratic socialist left - racism is systematic, embedded in the process of socialization. No one is exempt.

I've said this in another part of this thread, but I don't think that Coates' main point is the slightest bit hard to get. I would even expand it to say that all politicians and all people, not just Sanders, should be challenged on their ideas and policies and how they would impact the collective lives of black people. I just don't agree with Coates' overly simplistic premise that: opposition to reparations by a white socialist = hypocrisy, peculiar, etc. It's not peculiar at all to me, or surprising, since it's the same answer that most white and black politicians would all give (President Obama included). I don't find Sanders' answer to be that troubling because, while I support reparations (particularly the right to sue for damages that are clearly demonstrable along with class-action styled compensation), I don't think reparations are a singular answer to white supremacy, racial inequality, etc., just as it hasn't been for indigenous people, or Japanese-Americans.

Maybe this situation could be read as an opportunity for dialogue among political viewpoints that, in the end, will need to find common ground if we're going to make any real progress on the progressive side.

[MADem]

184. Well, you don't have to agree, but they are.

They're way behind equality in housing, equality in treatment by law enforcement, equality in access to loans, equality in access to decent public education, equality in access to neighborhood businesses like grocery stores, banks, and discount department stores, etc.

If I'm "race framing" it's because there IS a difference in the priorities of people based on race. White people don't have to worry about getting told "That apartment has been rented" when the landlord figures out what color they are. White people don't have to deal with a higher interest rate on their loan based on the color of their skin. White people don't get shit from the police because they're white. Why are you playing like "We're all the same before the Big Man in the sky took out his box of Crayolas, and colored some of us brown, some of us black, and some of us (WTF) a crayon color called FLESH."

Race FRAMING? How about "race reality." Good grief. There are none so blind as those who will not see. And as for dialogue, Bernie is NOT the guy to get that ball rolling--he doesn't want to piss off his largely white constituency by having any 'troublesome' people of color squawking and raising uncomfortable issues.

[jonestonesusa]

187. You had a good movie line in your response.

"We're all the same before the Big Man in the sky took out his box of Crayolas, and colored some of us brown, some of us black, and some of us (WTF) a crayon color called FLESH."

The joy of being reductive - never goes out of style on the internet.

I'm moving on - and I'll be supporting Bernie Sanders in the presidential race because I think this campaign has the greatest promise for impacting the lives of the largest number of people, compared to the other candidates. I don't think he'll dismantle racism in housing, law enforcement, loan access, etc., singlehandedly, same as every other president and politician did not. I also think it's essential to challenge internalized racism in every politician and every person, akin to Coates' obvious point, but we get the most benefit from challenging people productively and thoughtfully, in the context of dialogue. When it comes to racism, call-outs are easy, dialogue is difficult.

Feel free to disagree - you probably will. PEACE.

[MADem]

189. If I'm being reductive, it's because I see that you aren't understanding TNC's point.

The "revolutionary" is only "revolutionary" about things that are important to white people. He's not going to touch any issues that will drive that audience away, or make them go "Huh?" Way too many caucasians have no understanding of his argument re: reparations, and they don't want to understand it. They're too busy worrying about who descended from slaves, and terrified that all those Jamaicans and Haitians will race over here to get some of that free money, or something.

They don't 'get' what TNC is saying and they don't want to get it--because getting it means that there's an understanding of a debt that is long overdue and should be paid.

[MADem]

137. ZING. You are the opposite of wildeyed! You focused like a laser beam on the nub, the essence, of

TNC's argument!

Oddly enough, HRC kicked the reparations ball down the field in her Senate ( Lazio) debate. She said we have other things to do to mend the injustices in the black community ... FIRST.

[Empowerer]

165. Beautifully stated, as usual.

Thanks!

[comradebillyboy]

203. excellent observation...

[Number23]

3. I do believe that this is your first post here and you come in here solely to launch personal

attacks on Coates?

And it's intriguing to me that you think that reparations evokes such strong passions but not any of the others issues that Sanders has made the hallmark of his campaign including apparently dismantling Obamacare for Medicare for All. Even the vast majority of Democrats have no interest in doing that. Imagine the screams you'll hear from Republicans.

I don't think the majority of Black voters are basing their support for a candidate on whether or not they support reparations, so what's behind the attack?

I don't think so either. Which makes the unadulterated panic in your post all the more bewildering. I saw no "attack" from Coates. I saw a man question a presidential candidate who lauds himself constantly as an "outsider" and doer of grand deeds but still somehow thinks that reparations are too "divisive."

[nyabingi]

29. Yes, this is my first post here

and yes, I am attacking Coates because his rationale for targeting Sanders for not supporting reparations doesn't really make sense to me at all.

Universal healthcare (or Medicare-for-all) is not on the same level of reparations by any measure. Obamacare, when looked at for what it is, is a mechanism designed by conservatives (the Heritage Foundation) to get everyone to but into the private healthcare industry, the same industry who's only motive is to make a profit, not make sure everyone's healthy. The ACA is a very small step, but it is by no means the best that can be done, and I think they are more than a few Democrats who'd be willing to admit that much. Sure, Sanders may have a snowball's chance in hell of getting universal coverage passed into law, but at least the idea is being put forth and being talked about. John Conyers presented a bill every year he was in Congress to simply open a discussion on reparations and it was never even talked about publicly or in the media.

"Unadulterated panic? There's no "panic" in what I'm saying at all. If Coates was really being honest about Sanders and his stances then he knows that there's a difference between his kind of "radical" and the radicalism of a Black nationalist - Bernie is a democratic socialist, not a far-left radical. Coates know that, so his focus on Bernie specifically is suspicious.

[Number23]

73. You may find it suspicious but it's pretty clear that most people who have actually listened to

Bernie Sanders -- including apparently Coates -- do not.

There is no ideal to grand, too expensive, too huge to tackle -- unless its reparations. And then he turns into the consummate politician on this issue. The issue is "too divisive" and "will not pass" which, as Coates has observed very clearly, is the same thing that can be said about the vast majority of Sanders' platform. Why is this one issue alone the source of so much anxiety and angst??

John Conyers presented a bill every year he was in Congress to simply open a discussion on reparations and it was never even talked about publicly or in the media.

Apparently, the irony of this has completely escaped you. Re-read your OP, and then re-read that sentence. Let it sink in. Take as long as you need.

[jonestonesusa]

107. I agree that Sanders sounds more like a standard

politician with this answer. But based on your own reasoning about the white political fear of reparations, what would you expect? How many politicians, white or black, support reparations? Obama? Clinton, Hillary or Bill? Coates' article is a gotcha piece directed at Sanders, which points out the obvious fact that white politicians, even those that support political revolution as variously defined, do not support reparations. Coates succeeds in making his point, though it's a Captain Obvious point.

[Number23]

146. And you guys continue to track into this forum calling this a hit piece and an "attack"

when it's pretty clear that the thrust of the piece (Sanders being nothing more than a politician on the hard stuff despite lauding himself as a revolutionary) is as disturbing to you as it is to Coates.

If the liberaly-est politician running won't even discuss reparations and has been hit -- more than once -- on his own racial tone deafness, then what chance does this country have of this crap ever going away??? NO ONE else has portrayed themselves as a revolutionary, as a radical wanting big things the way that Sanders has. If even he fails on this, what chance does anyone else have, especially the black folks who are in desperate need of revolution?

[MADem]

158. EXACTLY!!!! nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Okay ... I read the piece and thought it was great ...

the bottom-line is found here:

But judged by his platform, Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy. Jim Crow and its legacy were not merely problems of disproportionate poverty. Why should black voters support a candidate who does not recognize this?

Perhaps, someone will hazard an answer.

[Number23]

5. As usual, you've reached the crux of the matter and rage.

Not that it was hard to find...

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. But I'd beeter be careful ...

someone will hurry along to say that I said "Bernie is a racist" or "Bernie don't care about no Black folks" ... when my question is the same as Coates'.

[tishaLA]

8. You really need to read the thread in GDP

There's some good discussion of it, but then there is also some serious derp.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Link? eom.

[tishaLA]

11. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511032008

[emulatorloo]

50. tishaLA, that is a great thread you started. Your responses to the derp posts are terrific.

You calmly knock down every excuse and easily dismantle the attempts at misdirection.

[Number23]

74. uponit777 whupped some SERIOUS ass in that thread too

[emulatorloo]

76. Yes indeed uponit did! And you obliterated a few asses yourself!

[Starry Messenger]

51. I should have read that last night.

Lots of great responses.

[JI7]

12. what i noticed about that thread is for days now we have had thread after thread from certain ones

complaining about pragmatism and even if we can't get something we need to still support it (single payer) .

but on this one issue they suddenly say how it can't get support or pass.

but i think Sanders realizes how difficult this issue is because he knows many of the white people supporting him would not support it. the same people who claim to be progressive and whatever the fuck else would actually be opposed to it. it's not just a matter of seeing it is difficult but he knows they would oppose it.

[tishaLA]

14. And that's what I think Coates is pointing to, this question of workability

and I think your final paragraph is spot on: were his base of support not what it is, he would have a far easier time at least paying lip service to reparations--or, failing that, making a thorough critique of systematic racism (beyond poverty and the criminal justice system) central to the argument.

[Number23]

18. You have fucking nailed it once again

what i noticed about that thread is for days now we have had thread after thread from certain ones complaining about pragmatism and even if we can't get something we need to still support it (single payer) .

but on this one issue they suddenly say how it can't get support or pass.

Amazing, ain't it??

but i think Sanders realizes how difficult this issue is because he knows many of the white people supporting him would not support it.

[Empowerer]

167. How many times have even the mildest suggestions that Sanders may not be able to accomplish all that

he promises been shouted down with cries of "Hillary is the 'No we can't candidate' while Bernie is the 'try ianyway' candidate!!!"?

[randys1]

54. You noticed that too...

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. NAILED IT!

[highprincipleswork]

28. A very easy answer - because they think nonetheless he will do the most for them.

I can see why they might not believe that. Some of us do believe that. Some of his POC supporters, like Killer Mike and Nina Turner believe so.

But really simple as that. Because they believe, if and when they do, that he will be a better champion of things that benefit them than the next person.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Okay ... That would be one answer ...an answer without foundation; but, an answer none the less ...

What Bernie is offering is "trickle down justice", socially (if he doesn't deem it too "divisive&quot and economically.

[highprincipleswork]

60. I never said anyone had to believe that Bernie offers more.

I think he offers a more solid chance for POC to achieve progress, but that's my point of view. And though John Coltrane is my avatar, I'm White.

So, lobby, volunteer, donate, vote for the person you feel most likely to be consistent in working for results you would like.

Just remember that Hillary Clinton has given plenty of evidence that she may not be that person as well.

[JustAnotherGen]

63. That's why I believe you should switch to O'Malley

He has Executive Experience and won't be burdened by 30 years in Washington. He was also a little boy in the 1960's - so he won't be burdened by any of that old time nonsense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. I do and will support the candidate that I ...

Believe will further my interests, and those of my community, as I understand them, best. And, a big part of that calculation is the ability to get stuff done.

BTW ... that person is not HRC.

[JustAnotherGen]

65. I'm glad you wrote this

He focused on 'civil rights' to me -

Nothing about Paycheck Fairness - which is ENTIRELY addressing income inequality.
Nothing about breast cancer rates.
Nothing about red lining, interest rates, fair banking

It's about 'lofty bullshit' not things that will impact the bank balance and put black people into the upper middle class and beyond - regardless of who they have to stop on, over, or shove aside to get there.

[highprincipleswork]

87. That's cool.

[JI7]

104. Hillary supporters usually don't try to make her out to be something so Great that only she will do

it's not sanders as much as his supporters. particularly his white supporters when it comes to race issues.

[Empowerer]

168. This. . .

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

152. "Trickle down justice" indeed!

[JustAnotherGen]

52. And when he doesn't after his first 90 days

In office -

I'm changing my avatar here to President Obama with 'miss me yet' across it.

Maybe one of his ice cream cone pics.

[highprincipleswork]

61. I don't wish to offend, but what Civil Rights action did President Obama get done in the first 90?

Perhaps I'm just missing it, and I sincerely would like to know.

[JustAnotherGen]

62. Not offended but shocked!

Shocked you have never heard of Lilly Ledbetter!

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Or, the DoJ's action on Voter Rights! eom

[JustAnotherGen]

116. Shhh at DU

Eric Holder is the most vile, evil person to ever walk America.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. Second, only to President Obama ...

(who they donated to, campaigned and canvassed, and voted for 2,000 times, before anyone knew who he was).

[lovemydog]

160. (Shortly before they spent seven years knocking him

for failing to 'do' things that anyone with knowledge of the separation of powers knows are outside the realm of the presidency. 'Use the bully pulpit!' they exclaimed, as though the President of the United States is supposed to spend each day yelling about some new 'outrage' fed to them by MSNBC or whatever blog post they just finished reading.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

163. LOL ... Doesn't that bolster my "ridiculous claim" ...

Well ...

'Use the bully pulpit!' they exclaimed, as though the President of the United States is supposed to spend each day yelling about some new 'outrage' fed to them by MSNBC or whatever blog post they just finished reading.

That style seems appealing to a segment of the population ... you know, that same segment that alternates between completely trusting and completely distrusting the media.

[highprincipleswork]

90. You are right. Well familiar with it, but forgot it was signed so fast.

Remarkable thing that.

Wonder when we as Democrats will respectfully submit that we are on the same side and generally want many of the same things?

From your comments, I guess you believe O'Malley would do better in those first 90 days. I've always liked him. Would love to see him in the administration. Hasn't been able to catch fire in a way that is necessary to mobilize the forces that need to be mobilized.

If he would accept it, and it made sense strategically and personally, would love to see him as V.P.

In any case, thank you for your example.

I personally trust where Bernie is coming from, trust his leadership, admire his ability to mobilize people, and so far I'm banking on that. I feel confident he would get as much done in the first 90 days as any of the other candidates, and particularly compared to Hillary, who is so far the other leading contender.

But we can perhaps respectfully disagree with that, or find other common ground. In any case, thanks.

Not sure the rolling, laughing head does very much to move us forward however.

[JustAnotherGen]

115. I don't believe it about O'Malley at all

Last edited Thu Jan 21, 2016, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

His record is one of careful measured navigation to get things done within the framework he walks into. He is on the cusp of Gen X and it shows in how he does everything. In that smile and appeal to move America forward I also see that cynical assholism that I respect.

So i have zero expecation that he will get his three key initiatives done in 90 days. He's not talking about a revolution. Or a total decimation of how America works today. He could reimplement Glass Steagall in the first 90 days with the Republican House. There's a will to do it.

However - energy - minimum two years. He needs to allow the green focused industries time to develop thir lobbying efforts in the house and show how money can be me made by individual Americans. His record as Mayor and Governor - change course when necessary. When he speaks to American cities - he speaks to those who were redlined into those hell holes.

My laughter and derision comes from standing at the bottom of the valley of comeuppance. I have nothing in common with those on the left who can't wait for Obama to leave office. Many are Sander supporters who are angry that he didn't do every single thing they wanted. They are real quick to say, "What did he do for black people?". As You did. Here's number one - HE WON. TWICE. FAIR. ON THE UP AND UP.

As a person whose parent were black/white - he also shattered the "but what about the children' myth. Well the poor little mixed children can grow up to be the President.

So - I will hold my nose and vote for the Magical Sanders if he is the nominee - because I'm a Democrtic Party member. However - Sanders supporters should prepare themselves - there are people who know they are going to be disappointed and after they have treated Obama - they are going to hear: Whose A POS Used Car Salesman now? And nope - I'm not talking about at DU.


I'm talking about the people who knocked on my door on Sunday to try and get Sanders on the ballot here in June. They can't speak in depth about WIIFM - so I'm not signing it. Then to get angry? Ha! When I stand at my front door, pull up your candidates website and can't find a white paper abou the revolution - I'm not giving him the signature.

First things first - when Sanders supporters say they want a new FDR - they are talking about (when the don't give details) a seizing my home and/or making it illegal for me to live here.

Note - I'm extremely involved local politics /township driving initiatives to Trenton. This is a borough on the upswing. Without folks like me whose income has doubled since 2008 living here? These historic homes don't get renovated, the craft breweries don't come, the wine tapas places don't come . . . Make it illegal for us to live/own homes here - iE the recent influx of affluent blacks and immigrants and Hispanics - you will kill this town. And my investment (restoration costs) of my home.

Your job? Convince your fellow Sander supporters to drop this FDR nonsense. Black Americans are firmly planted in ths century and are focused on moving forward. There was nothing good for us in the good old days.

One last thing - its not hyperbole. In my line of business if things aren't written in stone - then anything left open to interpretation gets fucked up. What this revolution entails must be written in stone. FDR's policies - will send us back to Sharecropping in gunny sacks.

[lovemydog]

143. Very well-said JAG.

Thanks.

I like a lot of FDR's new deal policies. But when people say 'let's return to the good old days of FDR' that carries implications that can harken a nostalgia that for many was terrible. Whether or not people who say this are well-intentioned is beside the point. They should be aware of the sensitivities of calls to the American past, and what that means for minorities, for women etc.

This may have to do somewhat with the point that Coates is making. If you say you want a 'revolution' then you should have some sensitivity to what that word implies. It means a radical upheaval of the social, political, economic and moral order of things. That can also have disastrous effects for many if it's combined with returning to those 'good old days'. I see too many people throwing words around and then backing off of them whenever it suits their own purpose. It gives me pause, as I'm wary of anyone throwing around loaded words, phrases or memes who are unmindful of their implications.

[JI7]

103. i believe Sanders cares about POC also and i support Sanders, but i also don't make him out to be

something he isn't. and i don't think he will be able to do all these thingms that hillary wont do.

[guillaumeb]

53. You are asking a politician to admit that the economic success of the US is based on

the deliberate enslavement and subsequent exploitation of blacks. That cannot happen because it contradicts the narrative of the US as a nation favored and blessed by God.

White exceptionalism is the true faith of this country. Anything that detracts from it must be rejected. Reparations would imply that white society stole something of value and I would guess that the vast majority of US citizens believe that passing the CRA, even if it was done 100 years after your civil war, ended all obligations to black people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. I think we, in this group, know the answer to that very poignant observation. This is what puzzles..

me about BS' handful of outspoken black supporters. There's nothing "revolutionary" about an old dude who's been loitering the halls of Congress for decades, and still screaming about some 60's style "revolution". BS knows that he'll certainly lose some of his outsider support if he delves too deep into issues of race, and that's a fact.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. And some of his "insider" support, as well ...

assuming by insider, you accept that I am referring to people the self-describe as Democrats/progressives.

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. "Outsider"; "Insider". It all equals "White". They're the ones who feel that anything given to.....

someone else, is taking something away from them. Not all whites of course, but there's a streak running through the Trump & BS campaigns that is strikingly similar, and all too familiar. I think you know where I'm coming from.

BS is supposed to be the radical who can get big things done that the "pragmatics" can't. But he knows full well, he'd lose half his support, or "revolutionaries", as they like to call themselves, if he got in too deep.

[Uponthegears]

85. Perhaps

because there is no major candidate who does. Perhaps because, on the issue of race, the choice during the primary is between two folks who are handing out Band-Aids to smallpox patients and the decision is only between whose Band-Aids cover more of the festering sores.

I have zero problem with Coates going after Bernie. From those with great vision, great things are expected. I think it's a sad statement about what a waste of time it would be to go after Hillary that he didn't do the same to her. (Seriously, when Jay Nixon and Claire McCaskill are your spokespersons, there really is zero reason to even speak to you).

I, for one, am not going to wait until I hear a candidate: (1) call Atlantic Slave Trade and Southern Slavery the greatest human rights violations in the history of the world; (2) admit that it destroyed the cultural underpinnings of an entire race in the Americas (which systemic racism has intentionally prevented from re-establishing); (3) admit that the majority culture would have exactly nothing save for slavery; and, (4) offer up the $60 TRILLION the majority culture OWES people of color (every one of which is a FACT) before I support a candidate.

You may do what you wish.

[stevenleser]

198. It wouldn't make sense for him to go after Hillary. She's being a realist on policy.

As I said up-thread, the issue here is hypocrisy.

What we are saying is equivalent to why don't we treat a Democratic woman who is pro-choice and gets an abortion with derision when we would treat an anti-choice Republican woman who gets an abortion, tries to hide it, and campaigns against choice with disgust. It has nothing to do with the abortion and everything to do with hypocrisy and double standards. You're focusing on the issue and the fact that no candidate is for it. It's not about that.

Same thing with a Democrat who doesn't bathe themselves in religion and family values who has an affair and the difference between them and a Republican who does/did wrap himself/herself in the cross and family values and then gets caught having an affair.

Seeing Republicans discuss this kind of stuff on their forums its clear they don't seem to understand this or they willfully refuse to get it. They are focused on the idea that both folks had affairs. Why arent we treating it the same. It's not about that.

Sanders and his supporters claim nothing is too difficult to accomplish. He can wave a magic wand, mobilize his supporters and force the Ryan controlled GOP House of Representative to pass Single Payer. Everytime someone like me complains that this is not possible your fellow Sanders supporters dismissively call me a pessimist at best.

OK, fine, so why can't he get reparations passed, or anything else for that matter. You want it both ways here and Coates is pointing it out.

[Uponthegears]

199. That's funny

Let's see . . . Both Hillary and Bernie have not mentioned reparations, but Hillary gets a pass because she is not more than a hair's breadth to the left of Kasich. Has nothing to do with Coates' long time advocacy for reparations. It's because he's suddenly become a big fan of pursuing only what can be passed through a,GOP congress? I am going out on a limb here and saying you did not read the Atlantic Monthly article AND you haven't read one other thing Coates has written.

[stevenleser]

204. Nope, you're still not getting it.

Sanders is blowing sunshine up his supporters posteriors claiming its possible to do anything because he's Bernie and they will support him.

So if it's possible to do anything, why not this?

Coates is wondering why from a perspective of the issue that matters to him.

I'm enjoying this because it touches on my main criticism of Sanders. He can't get a single piece of his agenda passed through a Ryan controlled House of Representatives, so there is no reason for his candidacy at all.

[Uponthegears]

205. Still laughing

Ta-Neshisi Coates has close to zero concern about what is practical. If you had read his prior writings, heck, if you had read all of his Atlantic Monthly article, if you had ever spoken with him, you would know that. Of, course, you haven't. In fact, I would almost guarantee that you had never even heard of Coates until the Atlantic Monthly article came out.

Your post is the mainstream spin on an article which is actually about a very real problem, a problem shared by most Hillary, and far too many Bernie, supporters.

Coates' issue isn't about whether Hillary or Bernie will be better for people of color. It's about whether those folks who dominate Democratic politics have the courage to confront racial justice issue that most people of color face every day of their lives. Of course you want it to be about "whether Bernie is pushing pie-in-the-sky policies." If it weren't, you might have to talk about why huge swaths of the DU community are so antagonistic to BLM and squawk about how BLM is "hurting black people," or why they are so pro "law and order," or why, when there are police shootings, they latch onto the mainstream meme about "bad cops" instead of facing up to the fact that the cop on the street is just a small cog in the gear called the criminal justice system which was intentionally designed in large part with the specific purpose of subjugating and killing people of color and perpetuating the same power structure that was formerly perpetuated by whips and chains. (I focus on the criminal justice system partially because it is my area of expertise and partially because it is the most acknowledged-by-the-power-structure aspect of systemic racism)

While they may not be pushing for a neo-Confederacy like the pond-scum in the Republican Party, they are either unaware, or unwilling to admit, the pernicious effect of the greatest human rights violation in the history of the world (the cultural and physical genocide that was the Atlantic slave trade and the institution of Southern slavery). They want to act like Jim Crow ended with Brown v. Board of Education and that the plight of people of color has been on a steady upward path ever since. They think the crack cocaine sentencing disparity was an aberration and pat themselves on the back for working to end it, yet can't even grasp the possibility that seatbelt laws, laws criminalizing school misbehavior, laws against loitering, etc. are perhaps even a more integral part of a pattern of subjugation that continues to this day.

In short, they, like Bernie, Like Hillary, like most folks, are pretty sure that incremental change is working even as Michael Brown was left lying dead on a Ferguson street, just as he was destined to do from the day he was born and we are approaching 200 years since the Emancipation Proclamation.

Does Bernie get it? I don't know. He at least shows signs of trying when he welcomes endorsements from folks like Shaun King. Does Hillary get it? She might as well. Will either of them start sounding like Coates (much less like Uponthegears)? Not going to happen.

One last point (one that is totally off the real subject, but it totally on the subject of your attempt at diversion). Hillary supporters yammer on about how Bernie won't get his ideas through a Ryan-controlled HOR. Setting aside the fact that this ASSUMES that control of the House cannot be wrested away from the Republicans . . . tell me which of Hillary's ideas will get through the HOR? Barrack Obama was a transformational figures with more public support than any president in decades pushing an incredibly modest agenda and even he got nothing through the post-2010 House. The fact is that BOTH candidates are running on principles alone. If she can't tell us which of her principles are better, then it is your candidate who has no reason to be running.

Truth and reconciliation begins with truth.

[stevenleser]

206. You're laughing because you don't understand it. If you got it, you wouldn't be laughing. nt

[Uponthegears]

207. Toro or Honda?

[OneGrassRoot]

126. As someone who leans toward Sanders...

I totally get it, and appreciate this thread to make me aware of the situation.

I mean I get the inconsistency of the "revolutionary" platform vs Sanders' pragmatic stance on reparations.

Maybe Coates' article and coverage of the same will lead to an awakening on Sanders part. Doubtful, but possible. Who knows? Perhaps that is Coates' goal; not only to bring the discussion of reparations into national awareness but to target the one candidate who might be bold enough -- given his revolutionary talk about other issues -- to actually change his mind and embrace it as a legitimate issue to put on the table.

Thanks, everyone.

[Empowerer]

169. Thank YOU!!!

You are a breath of fresh air. I really hope that most Sanders supporters are like you but just aren't being heard over the shouting.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

145. Crickets from those in this thread, including the OP, to your questions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. That's,probably, because we are at the point of the learning curve, where ...

most recognize that, "But Hillary (O'Malley) ...", no longer suffices as an answer.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

153. Uh-huh!

[1StrongBlackMan]

155. Well, some at least have arrived there ... others ... well, not so much. eom

[Starry Messenger]

7. A) I am strongly in favor of reparations

B) I seriously doubt Ta-Nehisi Coates is in the bag for Hillary. His dad was a Black Panther and Coates is pretty left-wing too.

I think the other candidates *should* be asked about reparations, but since Bernie is running as a democratic socialist, who would presumably be more progressive on racial and economic issues than the other candidates, I think it is fair to test his commitment. If he really isn't for a systemic change of the system, in a way that challenges white supremacy and the way it has absolutely fostered capitalism and inequality, than what really makes him better than the other candidates?

And I agree with Coates--many of Sanders' ideas are totally not going to make it through Congress, but he has proposed them anyway as possibilities, which also singles him out from the other candidates. Why is this proposal the sticking point?

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. I would suggest that Bernie provided his answer ...

reparations (and from what I've seen, race specific remedies) are "divisive".

[Starry Messenger]

16. Yep, but I wanted to probe it more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Let me be more explicit here ...

by "divisive", I mean "opposed by much of his base", as they have nothing to gain.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Sad but true.

[wildeyed]

80. Ouch!

Yep, sad but true.

[1StrongBlackMan]

134. Forgive me ... I was being racist, again! eom.

[Recursion]

131. Oof (nt)

[MADem]

144. Not just "divisive." "Impractical and VERY divisive!!"

But his dream of UHC passed by a Congress that has tried to repeal ACA sixty times?

Naaah, easy peasy! Because Bernie! Feel the Bern, and all!!!



Source: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/yet-another-obamacare-repeal-vote

[Number23]

20. I expected for most of us in this forum to fully understand what Coates was saying

And you nailed it.

[Starry Messenger]

23. This campaign is amazing to me, and not in a good way.

A massive reparations program for African-Americans would probably be the biggest socialist program this country could ever pursue. It would put so much money in the economy, it would blow everyone's socks off. Even if you were conservative about it and pursued it gradually, it would still be huge.

[Number23]

71. I have never even looked at it that way. I have traditionally not been in favor of reparations

but it absolutely astonishes me that for alot of hypocritical and clueless as shit people, the moon is the limit when it comes to "socialism" as long as it's not "divisive" read: positively benefits minorities.

[Starry Messenger]

99. If we're going to go after billionaires, why not get that money for the people who made them rich?

I think of it like unionism, I guess. Work makes the value. If you got centuries of wealth via free labor, you have a bill to pay.

JP/Chase did a payout (tiny) in 2005: http://www.nysun.com/business/from-jp-morgan-chase-an-apology-and-5-million/8580/ So all of these people running around with their hair on fire about how it will never happen are wrong.

I like reading all the other ideas people have posted about here too.

But like Coates concluded, getting the white politicians and the white activists to confront white supremacy, and have a society-wide recognition that the basis for the wealth of this country was one gigantic racist heist is still not in the offing. It should be a part of our work though.

[Number23]

100. And other countries have paid reparations for people who have been victimized by the State too

Wow, I had no idea about that JP Morgan Chase scholarship! Wonder if that's still going on??

[nyabingi]

38. TNC won't venture to question the other

candidates' commitment to confronting white supremacy because he knows they either openly support it (the entire Republican field) or probably have no clue as to its existence (Hillary Clinton).

There is a big difference between a "democratic socialist" and an anarchist, communist, revolutionary nationalist (like Malcolm X), etc. Bernie's positions aren't nearly as radical and far-out as they are being made out to be. In fact, they are pretty mainstream ideas in comparison to other industrialized wealthy countries - only in the US are they considered radical enough to warrant a comparison to slavery reparations, especially any form of reparations that would actually seek to repair the past damage of white supremacy and prevent its negativity going forward into the future.

Bernie is focusing on many of the symptoms of white supremacy (mass incarceration, economic exploitation and exclusion, the police state) in a way that none of the other candidates are, and I think TNC should have at least acknowledged that instead of knocking him for not being quite radical enough.

[Starry Messenger]

42. He mentioned "revolution" several times in the last debate.

To some of us who are more Red/left, that word has a specific meaning. Perhaps that is what raised an eyebrow with TNC.

The author gave the Sanders campaign three days to respond to a request for comment to this proposed piece before it was run. Too bad the candidate didn't want to give some time to the question.

[JI7]

13. so what do you disagree with ?

[SunSeeker]

15. You missed the point of the piece.

Why focus on Bernie? Because he labels himself the radical, the revolutionary, the Democratic Socialist.

Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of reparations for slavery. Bernie responded, "No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive." When Hillary provided those same reasons for not pursuing single payer at this time, Sanders pounced, as did many of his supporters here. They derisively called it the politics of "No We Can't." Why don't they have the same reaction to Sanders' position on reparations?

As Coates says:

For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive”  (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing  as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health-care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”
...
One can’t evade these facts by changing the subject. Some months ago, black radicals in the Black Lives Matters movement protested Sanders. They were, in the main, jeered by the white left for their efforts. But judged by his platform, Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy. Jim Crow and its legacy were not merely problems of disproportionate poverty. Why should black voters support a candidate who does not recognize this?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/#about-the-authors

[Recursion]

17. I'm not even sure Sanders is "the point" of the piece; he's just an example

I would say the point of the piece is that the politics does not exist in the US to even talk about the systemic and continuing impoverishment of African Americans and its role in the creation and maintenance of the white middle class. His original Case for Reparations piece is another good example: lots of people talked about it, and nearly all of them brought up slavery. But his argument wasn't about slavery, and he only mentioned slavery in a few tangential points (including a woman in Massachusetts who sued for reparations after she was manumitted). The bulk of his argument was about Federal housing policy after WWII, and he could make an equally strong case about Federal agriculture policy in the same period.

[tishaLA]

22. You are 100% correct

and the people who want to focus on slavery are the same ones who say, "but what about my Irish/Italian/Greek great grandfather," ignoring the fact that the institutional barricades they faces have been overcome LONG ago, whereas the institutional oppression that started in slavery have continued through tomorrow.

[SunSeeker]

24. Well, but there was a reason Coates picked Sanders as an "example."

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. See ? That's what happens when one reads a piece for what's there ...

and in the context of knowing the body of the writer's work (on the subject).

Please continue.

[nyabingi]

39. I think the real issue and the discussion that's

been missing in terms of reparations is what form the reparations will take. If we're talking about a paycheck (or pay-off) and an official "I'm sorry y'all", then that would be infinitely more feasible than the form of reparations that I think would really repair what has been done to us for hundreds of years in the US.

Reparations and universal healthcare aren't even close to being similar enough to compare one to the other, especially if you're going to accuse someone of hypocrisy for supporting one and not the other. One is a situation involving a very specific group (African Americans) and the other involves the entire population of this country, thus it would be a lot easier to get people to warm up to the latter because they are all benefiting. The idea of universal healthcare in this country is one that has at least enough support from the public to warrant its debate on the national stage. The same can't be said for reparations though - two entirely different things going on here.

[SunSeeker]

59. One may be harder than the other, but both are unattainable with today's Congress.

And as you note, reparations does not necessarily mean a check, so the level of "hard" depends on how the goverment implements reparations. But regardless, "hard" was not supposed to be an issue for the Bernie Revolution...except when it came to the issue of reparations. It is not just a matter of hypocrisy but a matter of why Bernie has chosen the priorities he has. The fact that Bernie is "No We Can't" on reparations but "Yes We Can" on all of the desires, however unattainable, of the white left is, as Coates observes, "illuminating."

As you note with regard to single payer, Bernie's support of it generates "debate on the national stage." That is all he can offer for any of his pie in the sky ideas, and yet he won't even have that discussion about reparations. Suddenly he's a pragmatist. Illuminating indeed.

[nyabingi]

67. I frankly believe that the push for any kind

of reparations is going to have to originate from within the community it will be going to. There have been efforts and brainstorming sessions a-plenty, but nothing has really gotten to the level of actual consideration. I honestly wouldn't someone who is not Black to be the champion of the drive for reparations, and I think it's high time for the Black community in America to start considering options and expressing a vision of what reparations would entail.

The last sentence of your first paragraph ("the fact that Bernie is 'No We Can't' on reparations...&quot is a point I can agree with and have no qualms with. It first takes someone to place it in the national conscience, and I think Bernie was saying that he definitely is not the one to do it (and like I said, I really wouldn't want him to). Now whether Bernie can get any of his ambitious ideas passed or not, we can at least feel a bit more confident that he won't do a complete reversal once in office under the guise of reaching a "compromise" with Republicans or simply sign-off on some of their bad legislation (like the ACA). Plus, there are actual examples of universal healthcare in the world to point the people to as an example of what is achievable given the desire and political will.

If not for gerrymandering, there would hardly be much a Republican presence in Congress, so I can't understand why the Democrats haven't taken more of an activist approach on a statewide level to fight against it. There are always lawsuits here and there to change heavily-gerrymandered states, but there needs to be a national push as well. Attacking and dismantling some of these unfair and biased electoral rigging schemes would eventually make things like universal healthcare a lot more feasible than they are now.

[SunSeeker]

91. Funny that you would say Bernie would never sign off on bad Republican legislation.

You state "he won't do a complete reversal once in office under the guise of reaching a 'compromise' with Republicans or simply sign-off on some of their bad legislation (like the ACA)."

In fact he has a long history of abandoning the Dems and voting with Republicans on some of their worst pieces of legislation, like the PLCAA and the Homeland Security amendment legitimizing racist border "militias." And with regard to the ACA, at the last debate Bernie bragged that he wrote it:

"I'm on the committee that wrote the Affordable Care Act," said Sanders at the debate held in Charleston, S.C. 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/sanders-despite-obamacare-29-million-people-still-have-no-health

I can certainly understand why you don't think Sanders should be leading the argument for reparations, but I don’t understand why you think it is OK for this "revolutionary" to come out and explicity oppose making the case for reparations.

[wildeyed]

94. And I frankly believe that any push for reparations

will come from a fusion coalition of activist and justice loving people of all colors. AAs do not have the numerical power to force this on their own. But any moral person understands that what we as a country did and continue to do demands justice. Anyone who studies history can trace the wound to our founding documents and see that it still festers. And the infection is not only in the AA community. It festers in the white community as well, but most of us are too drunk on our privilege to even care. We just consume more and more, addicted to the greed that was the root of the evil in the first place.

A true activist or revolutionary of any color should be willing to stand up and be part of that coalition that demands economic and spiritual justice for a wrong so obvious and gaping. But a politician could not, at least not yet. Clinton is a politician, so she will not. And O'Malley is a politician so he will not. And Sanders is a politician, so he will not either.

This is not about the nature of politicians. It is about intellectual honesty and a politician who demands radical economic justice for some, but refuses, on pragmatic grounds, to speak up for others.



And it is not "Democrats" damn job to "take an activist approach" to gerrymandering. It is the f'ing activists job. It is possible to do a complete end run around both parties and get a non-partisan redistricting ballot initiative introduced in most states. Take it straight to the voters, let them have their say. You want it? Go get it. But first you have to do the work of organizing to get it on the ballot and campaigning so you win. Do that and you might find a new respect for Clinton and her ilk, too.

[Recursion]

19. This piece is not "about" Sanders; he's just an example. It's "about" reparations

And about the fact that the white political establishment (Sanders is picked as an example of its farther left reaches) absolutely cannot bring itself to discuss the role of the impoverishment of African Americans in the creation and maintenance of the white middle class. The implied corollary I read there is that white politicians are simply not who is going to end white supremacy in the US.

[Number23]

21. Fabulous post.

the white political establishment (Sanders is picked as an example of its farther left reaches) absolutely cannot bring itself to discuss the role of the impoverishment of African Americans in the creation and maintenance of the white middle class.

You fucking NAILED IT. They cannot even bring themselves to DISCUSS the issue.

And Sanders, who has touted himself over and over and over again as the radical who will bring about revolution is one of the main ones saying it can't be done. That is damning and like Coates says, if the most liberaly-ist man running for the job can't even bring himself to consider this issue, if the most liberaly-ist person running for president is a "failed radical" on the subject of America's long history of white supremacy, then what hope does ANYONE have that this crap is going to go away any time soon??

[nyabingi]

25. I agree with your statement that

the white political class is not going to end (or really even address) white supremacy, but neither is the Black political class and none of them have really even discussed the issue. Besides John Conyers, the word "reparations" is not one that has been mentioned much by the Washington political class at all, so it's puzzling to me why TNC is focusing specifically on Bernie's rejection of the thought of reparations when there are plenty of people he could have chosen to call out.

[Recursion]

30. OK, but Coates is "the guy who wrote a famous recent piece advocating reparations"

So it seems pretty natural that it's what he wants to talk about.

[nyabingi]

40. So now Coates is the absolute

authority of reparations in the US for Black people? Just because he had a reparations piece published in the Atlantic? In my opinion, he seems to suggest that white supremacy and its assault aimed at the Black population ended in the 1960's with the end of the Jim Crow era, but he isn't extending that very real assault into what is still happening today. I don't think Coates is the reparations expert just because some white folks said he is.

He is the darling of the media right now and everyone is running to him for an "authentically Black" perspective when one is needed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. If this ...

In my opinion, he seems to suggest that white supremacy and its assault aimed at the Black population ended in the 1960's with the end of the Jim Crow era, but he isn't extending that very real assault into what is still happening today.

is what you have taken from TNC's piece, then I suggest you read it again (for a first time). TNC is very explicit about what is happening today ... and how it got that way.

He is the darling of the media right now and everyone is running to him for an "authentically Black" perspective when one is needed.

Wow ... Do you understand how offensively dismissive that line is?

[nyabingi]

49. I read the article,

why do you assume that I didn't? It was this synopsis of the argument for reparations that generated my words that you quote:

Sanders’s anti-racist moderation points to a candidate who is not merely against reparations, but one who doesn’t actually understand the argument. To briefly restate it, from 1619 until at least the late 1960s, American institutions, businesses, associations, and governments—federal, state, and local—repeatedly plundered black communities. Their methods included everything from land-theft, to red-lining, to disenfranchisement, to convict-lease labor, to lynching, to enslavement, to the vending of children.

You can't speak about the ravages of white supremacy in the past tense because the assault has neither ended nor ceased in its intensity. I'm sure Coates understands that and you do too.

My line about him being the darling of the (mostly white-owned) media is not offensive at all. White America has always selected a "spokesperson" to represent the diversity of views present in Black America, and TNC seems to be the chosen one at the moment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. I don't think TNC was speaking past tense ...

with respect to assaults; rather, he was presenting the historical record.

[Recursion]

110. Side point: Coates's use of tense, and control of time in his narrative, is in my mind unmatched

That gets to why downthread I compared him to DuBois and Henry James.

[Number23]

75. If that's what you took out of Coates' piece then it explains everything about this OP

This is clearly a topic in which your emotion has overruled your understanding. You should bow out and stop before this gets any worse.

[nyabingi]

135. Um, you don't need to repeat

1StongBlackMan's response to me, Number23. Read my response to that so I won't have to repeat it.

[Number23]

149. I'm not repeating anything. The response came up completely on its own after reading your post

And if more than one person is telling you the same thing, perhaps you should listen.

[Recursion]

108. Well, no: Coates quotes several actual authorities on reparations

And mentions with candor that he came to the party late and started out skeptical of the entire idea.

He's not in any academic sense an "expert" on reparations (and he would be the first to say that). He's a public intellectual who has spent the past five years exploring the concept, and has incidentally come up with some of the best writing of this generation on American history and culture in the process.

Side point: it's odd to me that in all the comparisons of Coates to other writers, two that are obvious to me never seem to surface: DuBois and Henry James. James I can get because the black-white crossover can be hard to visualize, but the DuBois connection seems obvious and I almost never see it. I know Coates is often critical of DuBois, but DuBois himself was even moreso.

[tishaLA]

113. I'd like to hear more about this James-Coates connection

When I started graduate school, I fancied myself a James scholar, but then decided the world didn't really need another. I nonetheless have an abiding affection for him, from short stories to novels to criticism, but I had never thought of a connection between him and Mr Coates. Care to enlighten me?

[Recursion]

114. I think Coates is in many ways a throwback to impressionism, which is why we need him

I've never read any fiction by Coates (I look forward very much to the comic book), but his narrative non-fiction is to me strongly impressionist: he starts with an axiom that every human being has an individual view on the world that informs their response to the world.

James's litcrit is more where the direct connection came; James was adamant that a text must be subjectively recognizable to the reader for it to have any value. This is to me where the Coates connection is the clearest: Coates is essentially criticizing the "literature" of American political writings and speech as unrecognizable to people of color.

So, I have no illusions that I have the light to enlighten you, but Coates's take on political writing as literary criticism reminds me of James at his best. I'd be happy to expand this more and defend it if you're interested, though it sounds like you know a lot more about James than I do; I'm just an amateur who likes James's criticism

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. See, now ... you two are going to force my to expand my knowledge base ...

Off to the google I go ... Search term: writings of Henry James.

[JustAnotherGen]

129. I need to go back to James work

Havent read it since I was a teenager.

[Recursion]

132. Yeah, I need to re-read him too

It's been since college.

[wildeyed]

128. Amazing response!

I looked for the bow down and worship smilie, but they don't have one, so the closest I can do is throw tiny digital flowers at your feet



And now, having read neither Henry James or WEB DuBois with any seriousness, I will add to my already formidable reading list and slink off...... LOL, I used to think I was a serious reader too.

[Recursion]

133. "The Souls of Black Folk" is probably the best DuBois place to start

Though his letters are amazing.

For James, I'd recommend "Turn of the Screw" and "The Bostonians" to start...

[Number23]

179. Your posts in this thread are absolutely stellar

Now I gotta go bone up on Henry James!

[JustAnotherGen]

33. He just won the national book awards top prize for non fiction

For, Between The World and Me.

The book focuses on issues that politicians are too wimpy and too concerned with winning at all costs to discuss.

Wait - I noticed Martin O'Malley wants to revitalize American Cities - a concept not even discussed since Jimmy Carter was in office.

The issues of Urban America today are directly caused by the red lining that the FDR Administration put in place - you know . . . from the good old days.

[wildeyed]

95. Hmmm, they either ignore

or do not understand that redlining was codified by FDR in the New Deal. Or perhaps do not know what redlining is? Or about the unequal and racist distribution of New Deal money. Eleanor was a brick, but FDR, or at least those in his administration, did not care.

[Recursion]

109. Wilkerson and Coates absolutely opened my eyes to this

Seriously: it's very tempting in the white dream to see the creation of the white middle class and the expulsion of the black middle class as things that just magically happened at the same time. It's an easy temptation to fall to.

[MADem]

170. FDR couldn't bring himself to desegregate the Armed Forces during a war that was all about

paradigm shifts and rapid societal change.

It took a guy who was dismissed as a wimp, a 'haberdasher,' a 'political tool,' and all sorts of other denigrating characterizations, but who nonetheless understood what combat duty was like, having served in the Army during WW1. More to the point, Harry Truman had more than one or two racist bones in his body; he came from Klan country and was known to use that N word on more than one occasion. Yet he did something that probably went against his upbringing, his history, and maybe even his 'common sense'--because it was the RIGHT thing to do.


http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84

In February 1948 President Truman called on Congress to enact all of these recommendations. When Southern Senators immediately threatened a filibuster, Truman moved ahead on civil rights by using his executive powers. Among other things, Truman bolstered the civil rights division, appointed the first African American judge to the Federal bench, named several other African Americans to high-ranking administration positions, and most important, on July 26, 1948, he issued an executive order abolishing segregation in the armed forces and ordering full integration of all the services. Executive Order 9981 stated that "there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." The order also established an advisory committee to examine the rules, practices, and procedures of the armed services and recommend ways to make desegregation a reality. There was considerable resistance to the executive order from the military, but by the end of the Korean conflict, almost all the military was integrated.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. We're you alive in 1968

Or were your parents and grandparents?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/

Did you check "black/African American" on the 2010 Census? <- I did.

My dad was alive in 1968 - I was born in 1973.

This is simple. Implement the new "higher tax rates" that Senator Sanders wants implemented (ie payroll tax).

But for 34 years black Americans on the 2010 Census are EXCUSED from the higher tax rates but have access to ALL the benefits and "breaks" of this new society.

Easy Peasey Reparations Found.

It's simple and easy to trace.

Sure people like Rachel Dolezal would slip though the cracks but she needs access to a better mental health system so I'm okay with that.

[Recursion]

31. Or just buy up CountryWide's redlining algorithm (nt)

[JustAnotherGen]

32. That would be a good start too!

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. The algorithm that is still in play, today ...

and, while we're at it, if we REALLY want to be impactful, buy up Fair Isaac's credit rating algorithm!

[aikoaiko]

43. What does it mean to buy up a lender's algorithm?

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. I believe that refers to the program used to make lend/no lend decisions ...

which until 1989 was on paper, afterwards, thanks to Fair Issacs, the program was computerized and sold as an unbiased assessment of credit-worthiness. However, in hundreds of civil suits, discovery on the algorithm was quashed, as a "trade secret".

Most housing/consumer protection advocates strongly believe that there is a racial/ethnicity weighting component to the algorithm; but, the courts have prevented assess to the coding that would prove/explain the racial disparity that has been observed.

[aikoaiko]

45. Ok, so the idea is that buying up the algorithm would prevent the practice going forward?

Or is that once it is owned it can be made transparent to enable suits or other reparations?

I suppose I always assumed that reparations were limited to the transfer of money to the victims or heirs of victims of discriminatory governmental practices and that that's why I asked.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Yes to both questions ...

I suppose I always assumed that reparations were limited to the transfer of money to the victims or heirs of victims of discriminatory governmental practices and that that's why I asked.

Well ... a transfer of money is/would be one structure to a reparations plan; but, it has never been the structure advanced by advocates. The direct money transfer is touted by those that oppose reparations ... as you can see upthread.

[Recursion]

56. Right, that's one possible form of many, and probably not a great one

Affirmative and non-predatory lending policies would be a better one probably. Affirmative government hiring policies. Etc.

[Recursion]

55. Well, i was mostly being snarky about how it's suddenly hard to decide who's "black"

when we're talking about giving black people money, but when we're talking about taking black people's money people seem to have that question figured out pretty thoroughly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Taking or keeping money out of the hands of Black folks. eom.

[JustAnotherGen]

66. Or look at it like this

Since we paid in all of those years (my grandfather did, my dad did, my great grandfathers were both still alive on my dad's side then) -

And got jack shit except for lynchings and sub standard schools -

We don't need anyone's money -

But America needs less of ours.

We paid in equally and got jack shit back out of it -

So now we pay in less and get more out of it.

[aikoaiko]

68. I can understand and appreciate that model.

I suppose this sounds ignorant of me but I hadn't heard of reparations that weren't a lump sum payout to individuals or some collective.

Sources like:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol20/feagin.pdf

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/calculating-reparations-15-million-each-slave-descendant-us

I learned something from this thread. Thanks.

[JustAnotherGen]

69. Never read BAR

Never - many in the black community - myself included consider it to be filled with hatred towards white people. They want to be angry and scream but they thrive off of anger. They don't make money in an equal access to opportunity society. And - I would never look to them for anything. I'm just as high up the black America food chain as most of its writers -yet how many of them gave $20K to the UNCF as I did last year?

Just because folks like Corney and Jesse Jackson say 'it had to be this way' doesn't mean that is going to hold true with the younger generation. Corey Booker - home state hero would never go for something as stupid as a cash handout. Something that would benefit more than just black folks? Yep.

Imagine a young couple taking those tax breaks and single payer insurance additional monies - starting a business in the black community, employing in and serving in?

That's the way forward.

[aikoaiko]

70. Yes, thank you.

Were these types of options outlined in TNC's Case for Reparations piece? I remember it mostly being about contemporary events for which reparations should be paid, but not the solutions you mentioned. Maybe I didn't finish it. I had to come back to it a few times.

Is there any other resource on models of reparations that you would suggest?

Fun fact: I ran track and competed against Cory in high school. I was faster than him at one point, but he surpassed me by sophomore year. He was a good guy even back then.

[JustAnotherGen]

72. You have GOT to know my last boss! :-)

His house is directly across from the Booker homestead! He was big in ice hockey, sports booster in general in the town - reffing and such in the town - He's lived there since the early 80's.

These are the options that I have come up with and that happen in discussion in my circle. It's not about 'paying out' - that will fail.

But if it's - okay - we as a country screwed you out of all of these social programs you paid into -

We are going to give you a break on paying for the next big set - yet ENSURE you have access.

Coates laid out so succinctly what the real impact was on our lives in the past 80 years - it was big. We can't wait for politicians or the intellectual elites - we have to lead from below upwards.

We've waited - they've failed. Across the board. So time for ideas not generated by Professional Politicians.

[aikoaiko]

86. I like your ideas.

I should clarify that I grew up in a town about 11 miles away from Corey Booker's and our schools competed in track.

He went to Northern Valley (IIRC) and we were Northern Highlands.

[Number23]

77. That is one fabulous post.

Love it.

Imagine a young couple taking those tax breaks and single payer insurance additional monies - starting a business in the black community, employing in and serving in?

Oh, imagine indeed. But of course, the second that business started to make so much as $5 in profit certain white "liberals" would be screaming that the couple represents the ubiquitous oligarchy.

[Recursion]

111. I've loved this whole thread (nt)

[aikoaiko]

48. I think I could live with that.

[wildeyed]

96. Infrastructure investments too?

What about better SBA loan terms for entrepreneurs? Since neighborhoods and businesses were choked to death by the denial of capital, wouldn't it make since to make capital available, and at better than going rates?

Wouldn't the tax benefits only help AAs in higher tax brackets? Would we give earned income credit to those not making enough to pay taxes? I really like this idea because it makes it harder to game the system.

God, heads would explode if there was a mainstream politician willing to discuss this topic in detail.

[JustAnotherGen]

97. No - it would help all who were black on the 2010 census

The only means testing would be that census form.

I think 1Strong addressed capital and finance below . . . That's a challenge.

If you give me access to this Utopian Society everyone is hollering about and keep me at the current tax rate - I will continue to boost the HBCUs at an even greater level.

[tishaLA]

92. Coates will be on All In w/Chris Hayes tonight

to discuss this article.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Bad Chris ... How dare you broach the topic of ...

reparation being undoable because sizable segments of the Democratic coalition would not support them! (See above)

[sahel]

101. I don't know that I would put single payer and reparations

in the same category of unattainable. Single payer or something resembling it is more or less the default position of most other western countries. No other common law country has ever paid significant reparations to its indigenous people, although in this instance we are talking about vicitms of slavery and not indigenous people. For some reason not even the American left talks much about compensating native americans.

However, given that Coates does in fact appear to concede that reparations are politically unattainable and that not even john conyers would support them if he ran for president, you have to wonder what this column is ultimately all about, unless it is basically an elaborate case of sour grapes or more accurately the pony syndrome (if I can't have my pony fuck that other guys pony).

The latter proposition seems plausible when you consider that coates spends his time writing for publications like harpers and atlantic whose paying readerships are all 95% white and upper middle class. Coates has always said that he's surprised by the fact that his readership is largely white, you'd think having taken this many paychecks he would have gotten over his surprise by now.

[JI7]

102. it's not about slavery , it's about discrimination of blacks from housing assistance and many

programs in the past few decades.

[Recursion]

112. Why is it so hard to get people to read the actual essay?

It's mind-boggling.

[JustAnotherGen]

118. They don't want to hear

That black people are against raising taxes or rather paying MORE taxes -

Until we have written in stone guarantees that we get first acces in this New "New Deal" since we got fucked over in the old one.

[Recursion]

119. And I think that's the one

White liberals hate hearing that the vaunted New Deal was literally predicated on stealing from black people.

It's not about the Triangular Trade or Reconstruction. It's about the housing-based wealth of the white middle class being built on the backs of black renters and homeowners, within the last 50 years.

Again, Coates lays this all out quite directly and forcefully, and does so with frankly less of his usual rhetoric. It's almost like he knew how strong his argument was and didn't need his writing skill.

[sahel]

174. I read it

I read most of his stuff, just like all the other upper middle class whites I know.

[sahel]

176. Incorrect

He explicitly references slavery:-

To briefly restate it, from 1619 until at least the late 1960s, American institutions, businesses, associations, and governments—federal, state, and local—repeatedly plundered black communities. Their methods included everything from land-theft, to red-lining, to disenfranchisement, to convict-lease labor, to lynching, to enslavement, to the vending of children. So large was this plunder that America, as we know it today, is simply unimaginable without it.

I read the piece.

[JustAnotherGen]

117. Stop the slavery well - nonsense

This is about Jim Crow and FDR's New Deal

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. This ...

unless it is basically an elaborate case of sour grapes or more accurately the pony syndrome (if I can't have my pony fuck that other guys pony).

Is pretty much the opposite of what TNC has said ... repeatedly. He fully supports all of Bernie's "ponies" ... he just questions the sudden "pragmatism" on this particular pony.

The latter proposition seems plausible when you consider that coates spends his time writing for publications like harpers and atlantic whose paying readerships are all 95% white and upper middle class. Coates has always said that he's surprised by the fact that his readership is largely white, you'd think having taken this many paychecks he would have gotten over his surprise by now.

I have heard him say this. I think what he is saying is he is surprised that his readership CONTINUES to be 95% white, given the topics he writes about.

[Recursion]

124. head->desk

Yes, that was it.

He fully supports all of Bernie's "ponies"

For that matter I've never yet seen Coates endorse a (D) primary candidate, and I could entirely see him voting for Sanders.

He just wants this point addressed. None of the candidates will, and he wrote an excellent article about that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. Agreed; but, as you pointed out ...

few have taken a moment to actually read the piece, or listened to what he has been saying (for the last 2 years) ... and if they have, their reading/listening is being filtered through the twin filters of defense of a particular candidate AND resistance to acknowledging their complicity in the/a white supremacist system (and yes ... that includes our "Black" supporters of that certain candidate ... {Note: "Black" is in quotations, not to question their race; but, rather, to give acknowledgement to what they feel compelled to make known}).

[sahel]

173. Im sure we all support each others ponies

and that you are passionate about global warming, poverty, opposition to war, save the whales, healthcare and the entire myriad of leftist causes. But of course you want your pony at the top of the bill. Thats fair enough. There are so many worthy causes out there, and I will be the first to admit that I don't pay much more than lip service to a lot of them.

However, there used to be a rule, admittedly honoured more in the breach than in the observance, that even if you didnt actively support one cause or another, at the very least you wouldnt tear them down in an effort to try and secure oxygen for your own cause.

TNC doesnt support reparations himself, at least not with very much gusto:-

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/should-bernie-sanders-support-reparations

Coates is unhappy that Sanders is so reticent about reparations, but this strikes me as an odd criticism. A couple of years ago Coates famously wrote an Atlantic article titled "The Case for Reparations," and after reading it I concluded that he was reticent about reparations too. He certainly made the case that black labor and wealth had been plundered by whites for centuries—something that few people deny anymore—but when it came time to talk about concrete restitution for this, he tap danced gingerly. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

Ironically then, if you contend that TNC does support Sanders' causes, he is criticising Sanders for holding positions similar to his own.

Even John Conyers doesnt support reparations explicitly, his own bill calls for "appropriate remedies".

John Conyers is a stand up guy, by the way. The single payer bill that TNC allegedly supports with such faint praise was actually authored by him. He and Sanders have been front and centre on a lot of bills that would make a real difference to the lives of working people. Thats probably why he's been unwilling so far to join the Fuck Bernie Festival, unlike others. Many others. Others that think that "public awareness" in and of itself actually matters worth a damn.

Put it this way: what would your reaction be if next year a 1% property tax was levied on your property in order to (for example) compensate Japanese Americans interned during World War II?

Sudden clenching of the jaw? Taut neck muscles? "Hang on I didnt have anything to do with...".

Yes, exactly. A non starter. When you realise why you're not willing to pay reparations to the native Americans, Japanese Americans, you will realise why they don't want to pay reparations to you.

BTW, he's an intelligent man. I don't buy the "surprise" line for a second. If you truly don't comprehend why affluent whites are prepared to indulge someone like Coates once a month then I am happy to explain further.

[1StrongBlackMan]

181. Have you read ...

TNC's "The Case for Reparations"?

To say that TNC "doesn't {sic} support reparations himself, at least not with very much gusto, is ridiculous.-

Having read the piece (several times), I never got the impression that his intent was to offer up price tag or "concrete restitution", which seems to be Drum's point of contention; rather, he was merely making the case for such an action.

Ironically then, if you contend that TNC does support Sanders' causes, he is criticising Sanders for holding positions similar to his own.

I don't understand what you mean here ... TNC is not critical of Bernie's platform; rather, he is supportive of Bernie's platform, as far as it goes.

Put it this way: what would your reaction be if next year a 1% property tax was levied on your property in order to (for example) compensate Japanese Americans interned during World War II?

I wouldn't have a problem with that ... a 1% property tax levied on my property in order to (for example) compensate Japanese (or Native) Americans wronged by the US government. I would be hit, as a property owner; but, I would support that, as a long game play. America needs to get right with the peoples it wrong.

If you truly don't comprehend why affluent whites are prepared to indulge someone like Coates once a month then I am happy to explain further

Please explain, further ... as, I have no idea what's in the mind of affluent white (liberals).

[JI7]

183. "I wouldn't have a problem with that

... a 1% property tax levied on my property in order to (for example) compensate Japanese (or Native) Americans wronged by the US government. I would be hit, as a property owner; but, I would support that, as a long game play. America needs to get right with the peoples it wrong. "


THIS ......... i never understood those who claim to be liberal thinking this would be a problem for some. we still all benefit in ways by living in this country. why people would be so resentful over something like this............ ????? the only reason i can see is it's because of race.

as you say, you would have no problem with it. you could have responded with "but black people had it worse" "it wasn't my people who did it" etc. but instead you are able to see the wrong in itself and would have no problem giving something up to help in dealing with the wrong.

based on the thread in the other forum looks like many people not only think it would be tough/impossible to get reparations. but they are actually opposed to it themselves.

[1StrongBlackMan]

194. Of course, many here are liberals opposed to ...

Anything that costs them something.

[sahel]

193. Exactly

I never got the impression that his intent was to offer up price tag or "concrete restitution", which seems to be Drum's point of contention; rather, he was merely making the case for such an action.

Exactly. He listed all the reasons for why you might support it, without actually saying that he supported it.

I wouldn't have a problem with that ...

Because it will never become reality. Just like the affluent white liberals who claim that they are prepared to offer their houses up to accommodate Syrian refugees (because there isnt the faintest prospect that the refugees will be allowed here) but get their noses out of joint because the sushi restaurant across the road from their condo has started serving alcohol.

Please explain, further ... as, I have no idea what's in the mind of affluent white (liberals).

Well, of course you do. You probably spend much of your working life surrounded by white liberals.

There are mundane reasons. If there is to be a Black Leadership Class, the whites would prefer that it be beholden to them rather than to Black people. Chiefly this is done by ensuring that any prospective Black movement that emerges is brought within the orbit of the Democratic Party (its happening right now to BLM), and that Black writers are disseminated by white publishers to largely white audiences (I am pretty sure that accounts for most of them).

The liberal whites dont require that people like Coates temper their criticisms of racism or white people. Thats the genius of it. What they do require is that said writers wholeheartedly sign up to the principles of white western post-enlightenment liberalism. No radical politics. No nationalism. No socialism or anarchism or Islamic theocracy or traditional African societal advocacy. No genuine mass movements or agitation or violence. No antisemitism or homophobia. Basically please be a black version of a white liberal. When you think about it that way the totality of the coup becomes clear. Pretty much the whole black establishment has been brought into line. The very people who chant "white privilege" are themselves the strongest reinforcers of the cultural normativity of white liberal politics. It is complete and profound cultural hegemony by the same people who claim to be combating it. Even the conservatives are largely content to allow the white liberals to manage policy as it affects Black people. Why wouldnt they? The white liberals have been doing it successfully, more or less, for decades.

This is why the white liberal is the most profound racist, far more than the conservative. At least the conservative still fears the Black man. The liberal is so convinced of his ability to manage minorities that he no longer does.

Its an act of atonement. Of catharsis. For you as well, right? Makes us feel better about ourselves. Appeals to our sense of sportsmanship, that we allow ourselves to be very mildly flagellated on an occasional basis. It actually has very little to do with black people when you think about it, and more with us wanting to differentiate ourselves from those nasty slobby working class whites. You certainly wouldnt see any of those reading an essay by Coates. It takes refinement and breeding to indulge that sort of criticism of oneself.

[1StrongBlackMan]

195. There is too much for me to respond to via ...

my smart-phone.

I will respond, next week, when I return home.

[nyabingi]

140. Thank you for actually addressing one of the main issues

I have with Coates' attack on Sanders - his motivation, timing and what he's hoping to gain from it? Is he working for Clinton's campaign, receiving money from them? Why ignore Clinton's abysmal record with the Black community?

Everything you say about Coates is true, and I've read that since the runaway success of his book, he's moved himself and his family to Paris to rub elbows with the French elite. Such a man of the people he is...

[sahel]

175. He's fomenting the revolution, one Harper's editorial at a time

He's not working for Clinton's campaign. He is doing what affluent, liberal whites require people like Coates to do.

There's a reason people like Adolph Reed, for example, don't get invited to write for Vanity Fair. You'll read plenty of criticism of him though in the NYT. Same with Sanders, funnily enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/05/07/reviews/000507.07hitchet.html

[tishaLA]

186. too bad he doesn't write for Harper's

and too bad a pretty radical black writer finds a large audience among affluent, largely white, liberals; if only his fiefdom were limited to people who could never help affect policy change, he might be authentic enough. Other than that, your batting average here is 0%

[sahel]

192. "pretty radical black writer"

Ha. The teenage mutant ninja turtles were more radical than this guy. He's a straight laced establishment liberal.

if only his fiefdom were limited to people who could never help affect policy change

You mean, if he actually had a black audience? Maybe even helped to build a genuinely democratic mass movement? Nah screw it, its far more financially viable appealing to the better instincts of affluent white people. After all, its worked so well before.

[MADem]

136. You completely missed Mr. Coates' point. Completely.

His argument is that Bernie routinely proposes shit that ain't NEVER gonna happen, that his focus is "aspirational" not "actual change." So, if it's OK to propose pie in the sky shit that appeals to white people, then why NOT "reparations?" Regardless of the form the take?

And--for the record--Hillary didn't rule them out. She said there's much to be done .... FIRST. See her On The Issues page for the exact quote.


But the bottom line about Sanders is this--and that is the point TNC was making: his campaign is aimed at white people. If you didn't believe it before, believe it now. See this article about his new ad:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10806582/bernie-sanders-america

[nyabingi]

139. The idea of universal healthcare is not

a pie-in-the-sky idea but one that the US will eventually embrace, if not during Bernie's presidency, then during someone's presidency after him. It's inevitable in my opinion. Here is a very good explanation of why Bernie was correct in saying that seeing reparations happen is a longshot and divisive (much moreso than universal healthcare, which many people openly support).

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/21/white_people_just_dont_get_it_bernie_sanders_ta_nehisi_coates_and_the_reality_of_reparations/

The only interest someone like Hillary Clinton has in reparations for Black people is making sure that other rich people like her can benefit from it. She hasn't ruled them out because she has to find out how to make it work for her bank account.

The economic-based policies Bernie is putting forth are not white-specific policies - but ones everyone would benefit from across the board (except for the very rich I suppose).

I think you (and some others who have commented) missed one of the main points of my OP - TNC's MOTIVATION for launching this attack on Bernie Sanders at this moment in time. Why not attack Hillary, a woman who has supported tangible harm against not only Black Americans, but Africans as well (Libya)? What is TNC's motivation? Haven't heard him say anything about it since his hitpiece was published.

[MADem]

142. Go on and count up how many times the Congress has introduced a bill to repeal the ACA

in the brief time since it passed.

And you seriously think that you're going to shift this argument in a heartbeat?

You seem to forget that Bill Clinton tried too--put his wife in charge of a panel to try to sort out the differences. She was damn near run outta town on a rail.

And...one more time, since you seem DETERMINED to not get TNC's point--this is about HYPOCRISY. Reparations is the tool to make the point that Sanders can get all "revolutionary" about white people issues, but he hides behind the bush in the garden when it comes to things that concern black people (reparations) or gay people (VT marriage equality).

He's on RECORD for playing it like this--it's why his latest commercial is aimed smack dab at white people. He is not the candidate for all America. His world view is all about white people first, with black and brown following along, because there's "no difference" if the economic playing field is leveled (in his non-revolutionary worldview). Like that's gonna change "last hired/first fired" and magically give black people parity in obtaining credit that isn't usurious, housing that doesn't suck, and public schools that aren't falling apart.

Here--READ--THIS is the POINT: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/21/bernie-sanders-reparations-problem/

Sanders recently came out against reparations for slavery, which he described as impractical and “very divisive.” Coates responded that, in light of the candidate’s other fanciful policy proposals, it was peculiar he would require realistic thinking on this issue.

“Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy,” Coates wrote.

He added: “If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations … then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children.”

The goalposts have moved considerably in the century between Du Bois’s activism and Coates’s. Du Bois was fighting overt racism within the American socialist movement; Coates is criticizing what he perceives as racial indifference in a candidate who identifies as a democratic socialist.

[nyabingi]

147. The drive to repeal the ACA was mainly Republican

political gamesmanship, but it was an idea that originated in the minds of conservatives and is frankly a bad piece of legislation. I wouldn't mind seeing it banished in favor of Medicare-for-all.

You need to tone down your hostility and actually read what I originally wrote, MADem. Hysteria and all-caps is not going to win you an argument. My original post was not just about healthcare and the Clinton's failed attempt to get it done, or Republican obstruction to the passage of Democratic/Republican legislation, but about the motivation behind Coates' attack (go on, read my original post again).

No one in their right mind believes Bernie is a revolutionary communist/anti-racist activist - both are very different from what Bernie proclaims to be (a democratic socialist). Perhaps you and Coates don't really know enough about the left and its differences to make a distinction and are simply lumping them all into one stereotype? Their are many types of leftists and Bernie only represents one type. Grab a book and learn what to expect from someone who labels themselves a "democratic socialist".

What are the other candidates' stance on reparations I wonder, and I wonder if Coates will give Hillary three days to respond to a query about her position on it? Hmmm...

[MADem]

156. This conversation isn't about me.

So comments about my "hostility" are canards (FWIW I am not "hostile" -- that is not a synonym for "realistic&quot . And "hysteria" is one of those loaded, dismissive words usually used to put down women who speak forcefully. You're really batting a thousand with your flailing attempts at snarky disdain.

I think I'll buy off on TNC's argument--that Bernie IS a "revolutionary" (not a communist--that's your invention) when it comes to things HE wants to prosecute (but are pipe dreams), yet when it comes to pipe dreams that people of color hope for, he's running from that and calling these things "impractical" and "VERY divisive." Frankly, what's divisive is that he prioritizes the pipe dreams that white people want, and pooh-poohs the pipe dreams that people of color want--to put it as simply as I can manage. It's called hypocrisy, and it is noticeable. Coates isn't "in the bag" for Clinton, either--that's where your lousy argument goes all wobbly. Now where's your "motivation?" smh!!!

And if an "anti-racist" is a guy who has, for his entire political career, focused on the concerns of the "white working man," well, that's a new definition on me.

If you really wondered about the other candidates' views on reparations, you'd have looked them up. They've actually been cited in this and other threads.

But keep missing the point if you'd like. I can guarantee you the black community isn't missing it.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/10/white-man-pathology-bernie-sanders-donald-trump

[Empowerer]

171. You keep speaking my mind. Thank you.

[MADem]

172. Happy to oblige!!!

[JI7]

159. wow. now this issue is a conspiracy by Hillary against Sanders

Coates has been writing about this issue before this primary.

[tishaLA]

148. I just want to say this is one of my favorite threads ever on DU

and I've been here a dozen years. Lots of really great conversation going on and lots of really smart, thoughtful posters.

[nyabingi]

150. I asked for some thoughts on it

and was more than pleased with the thoughtfulness and consideration everyone has put into to it, even if I don't agree with some of it.

I don't think this type of conversation can take place on many sites and this is why I like commenting here. There is passion and sometimes anger, but I think that's human and a good thing as long as we keep talking!

[lovemydog]

162. Thanks for the original post.

I agree. That's why I love reading & learning here.

[wildeyed]

154. Right?

It has everything. Policy, debate, logic, nerdy book references, nerdy history references and statistics. It made me late to work this morning. I checked a reply and then next thing I knew I was 15 minutes behind schedule.

[lovemydog]

161. Jinx! I was just about to say the same thing.

Actually you said it before me so I owe you a soda.

[Number23]

180. Good Lord, I was just about to post the same thing!! OP started with humble (to say the least)

beginnings and turned into a beautiful swan.

Your OP in GDP was a good read too but this is what happens when the posters in this forum talk about the same issues that the rest of DU does. We usually blow every other thread away.

[Recursion]

191. This really was one of the best DU threads I've read in a long time

And I've been here 10 years now.

[bluestateguy]

190. I think Bernie's answer to the question was excellent

nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

201. Good ... others are less than impressed. n/t

[heaven05]

209. native Americans got reparations....

Japanese American got apologies and reparations(wwII). Descendant s of slaves will never get reparations. Never. BS knows this, HRC knows this. Every white person knows this. We will be "discussing" the shameful era that created this issue into perpetuity with the result being....NO 40acres and a mule....never. White people feel nothing about this era in American history except to tsk tsk the "cruel institution", Grant some voting and civil rights 50+ years ago as recompense and those only after it was perceived by the PTB that the AA community had deep rumblings of discontent because of racist laws and racist treatment by the majority Caucasian population....the racism is still a big problem today...21st century.

Politicians in America are vote seeking pragmatists who will NEVER alienate a voting bloc over something 99.9 percent of them could give less than a damn about.

Never expected from one who has been watching the racial climate degrade since JIM CROW.