BLM and the SCLC: we've been here before:

[hedgehog]

John Kennedy went into the Presidency more concerned about keeping the Cold War from turning into a hot war than he was about Civil Rights. He wasn't happy when Martin Luther King persisted in making Civil Rights the issue, but he did respond when he was forced to see what Black Americans were facing every day of their lives.

[murielm99]

1. The Black Power movement,

and the Black Panthers really frightened white people in the sixties. They did not understand.

BLM is doing the same things. It takes a lot to get some people's attention.

[Vincardog]

2. Don't confabulate BLM and Agenda 26.

[murielm99]

4. Suit yourself.

[aikoaiko]

9. I don't see anyone frightened of BLM; just annoyed at their demanding who can speak and when

at events that they didn't set up or run.

[murielm99]

19. I don't see any fear, either.

But in the sixties, the civil rights movement was new. The civil rights bill was a new law. Anything relating to black equality was something we were still learning about. There was fear of the more militant black groups. There was fear because of the disruptions, and the burning in cities, starting with Watts.

Hoover was infiltrating all the civil rights organizations and the antiwar groups. The established order was using scare tactics about anything related to the changes taking place.

I understand what they are doing. I understand why people are frustrated, too. BLM doesn't want accommodation. The bottom line is that they want to stop all the murders. They don't think politeness will accomplish that.

Demonstrations now are not covered by the media in the same way they were in the sixties and seventies. Many times they are ignored. Police are using new tactics to contain and defuse demonstrations. Interrupting events like NN and the Social Security and Medicare event has not been ignored. You may not like it, but it has gotten attention. I hope it is a first step, leading to dialogue.

[BillZBubb]

12. The Panthers achieved nothing. That's their legacy.

Do you want the same for BLM?

[murielm99]

13. The Black Panthers accomplished quite a lot,

and they are important to black history and American history.

They were founded originally for the same reasons as BLM: to protect black people from police violence and murder. They ran programs that fed a lot of children. This was before food pantries and food stamps became common. They drew a lot of attention to hunger in America.

They were infiltrated by the FBI, and often jailed for trumped up reasons. The media at the time used a lot of scare tactics to make people in general afraid of them.

If you want to know more about the Black Panthers, Google is your friend.

I did not post about what they accomplished. I posted about the parallels. I feel that you answered in a dismissive manner because you are offended that BLM has been unkind to your candidate. We must all treat him with kid gloves or face the wrath of his supporters.

The simmering racism of Bernie supporters, here and on other sites, is getting old. And it is hurting your candidate. Bernie's lack of money will not sink him. His supporters will. Bernie's lack of name recognition will not sink him. His supporters will. And since most Democrats at least give lip service to racial equality, the angry, racist behavior of his supporters that is popping up all over the internet will sink him, too.

[BillZBubb]

14. Wrong on many points. First, at this time, I am NOT a Sanders supporter.

Second there is NO simmering racism in Sanders supporters. That is a lie and a slander and you should be ashamed. It is such baseless accusations that will sink BLM.

As for the Black Panthers, I didn't say they did no good. What I said was in the long run, they accomplished nothing lasting.

I did not answer dismissively. I stated a fact. If BLM follows the path of confrontation and slanderous accusations of racism, the movement will die out and make no lasting contribution.

[murielm99]

16. That is about the answer I would expect from you.

Bye.

[Supersedeas]

23. if it amount to more people taking notice...then better a movement like this

than an more violent alternative

[BillZBubb]

3. I must have missed it when Dr. King swiped the mic at a Kennedy rally

and called all the people there white supremacists.

[daredtowork]

5. Malcolm X would probably be a better parallel.

I've been reading up on the Free Speech Movement: it has astounding things in common with Black Lives Matter - attitude as well as tactics.

[BillZBubb]

8. I hope not.

Malcolm X, in the end, didn't accomplish much--almost none of his goals were reached.

MLK had a lot of success. He did it the smart way.

[daredtowork]

10. In the end MLK was turning toward more direct action

MLK was gearing up the Poor People's Campaign and led the Poor People's March before he was shot.

However, I think it's a mistake to look for BLM's tactics just in previous black-oriented movements. They might draw from ANY strategy for social change that they perceive to be successful. Again, this is why I think we should pay attention to the language. "White Supremacists". They are dealing with a power structure of "supremacists" - how does one change such structures of supremacy?

[BillZBubb]

11. Again, I disagree.

MLK's PPC was a great idea. He NEVER hijacked a political rally. Direct action--marches, sit-ins, picketing, strikes, etc. are all legitimate and useful tools.

And no, I don't think we should pay attention to the "white supremacist" rant from a twit who stole a microphone. White supremacist has a specific meaning and connotation and it was said in a very specific and accusatory context. If you want to give that kind of ignorant rant a pass, more power to you. I don't. Politically and morally it was asinine.

You change the power structure by changing minds. You don't change minds with demeaning accusations and grandstanding. You do it the way MLK did it, not like Malcolm X who failed. If you want other examples, look at probably the most successful social transformer of the past two centuries: Gandhi.

[daredtowork]

15. MLK didn't change the world on his own

MLK is an important icon and rallying point. However, there were a lot of factors that fed into the social change of that time. There were riots. There were students picketing. There were black panthers. There were the weathermen. There were monks setting themselves on fire to protest Vietnam. There were students who were murdered for trying to register voters in Mississippi. A good part of Detroit was burnt down. Laws were passed and overthrown in California via referendum. There were lawsuits. Trains were blocked. People used their bodies to get in the way. Diversity of tactics.

MLK changing everything is a convenient myth.

[BillZBubb]

17. I never stated he did everything.

I did state that he was very effective. His tactics worked and had the biggest lasting impact. He was extremely politically savvy and used that to the advantage of his cause.

What lasting impact did the Weathermen have? Or the monks who torched themselves? Or the Black Panthers? Most of the social justice advances of that time fed off of what Dr. King was doing--and doing very intelligently.

[daredtowork]

18. The Black Panthers fed people and patrolled the neighborhoods

For certain segments of the activist African American community, the Black Panthers are heroes, and they would have a big bone to pick with you about how effective they were in terms of getting things done on the ground while MLK was far away giving speeches.

MLK is kind of a safe icon for exactly that kind of comfortable white progressive whom BLM activists are challenging. Since the progressives who benefit from the current social structure *liked* the way he protested (what we think of as effective might just be convenient), he is sort of their tame hero. BLM wants to choose a hero they prefer, which may not be so convenient. By treating them as allies, we get closer to allies. By pushing them to extremes, they start looking at extremists like Farrakhan.

[hedgehog]

7. I still think there are a lot of parallels -

people agreeing on the goal, disagreeing on the tactics:

http://civilrights.jfklibrary.org/Chapter-Read-More/The-March-on-Washington-for-Jobs-and-Freedom.aspx

[HassleCat]

6. And it will happen again

The issues contained within the Black Lives Matter cause have not been identified and clarified to the extent they can be translated into specific political actions. That will happen soon, as the candidates start to pick up on these issues and include them in their proposals.

[murielm99]

20. Exactly!

[Shankapotomus]

21. Yea but Kennedy was already in office

Big difference. Would he have gotten there if MLK made it an issue during his campaign? And if MLK did make it an issue during the campaign, would Kennedy even be the one in office to do anything about it?

Big, big difference.

[hedgehog]

22. There was an incident during the campaign

"The 1960 Election
By the time John Kennedy and Richard Nixon met to debate in the 1960 presidential campaign, the civil rights issue could not be ignored. Both candidates sympathized with the plight of African Americans, but failed to provide solutions to the problem. During the campaign, Martin Luther King Jr.was arrested in Atlanta for a sit-in and sentenced to four months hard labor. His friends worried that he would be lynched while in prison. Kennedy called Mrs. King directly and offered his sympathy; meanwhile, his brother Bobby called the judge in Georgia and King was released on bail a few days later. This incident drew little mainstream press, but the African American community was well aware of it. Martin Luther King Sr., who had endorsed Nixon earlier, switched allegiances. “This man was willing to wipe the tears from my daughter[-in-law]'s eyes,” he said. “I’ve got a suitcase of votes, and I’m going to take them to Mr. Kennedy.” The black vote was pivotal in the swing states of Illinois, Michigan and South Carolina that Kennedy carried."


and later....

"Reluctant Involvement
The African American vote may have been pivotal in getting Kennedy into office but once he was there he was reluctant to get involved in the divisive issue of civil rights. He and his brother Robert were drawn into the struggle when thirteen black and white members of the Congress of Racial Equality boarded a bus in Washington, D.C., and headed to New Orleans to protest segregation of interstate transportation. When these Freedom Riders were stopped by violence in Birmingham, Alabama, Robert Kennedy intervened to get the Riders back on their way. When mobs of angry whites attacked the Freedom Riders in Montgomery, Alabama, Robert Kennedy sent in federal marshals.

Having It Both Ways
Forced to react on the side of civil rights, the Kennedy brothers still did not seem committed to the issue. “The Kennedys wanted [it] both ways. They wanted to appear to be our friends and they wanted to be the brake on our movement,” said civil rights activist Roger Wilkins. But John Kennedy saw himself as having done more than any other president for African Americans. Historian Robert Dallek wrote, “he had gone beyond other presidents, but it was not enough to keep up with the determined efforts of African Americans to end two centuries of oppression.” Still, the Freedom Riders conflict had its impact. Robert Kennedy later said, “I never recovered from it.” For the rest of his life, he would remain a champion of civil rights."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/kennedys-and-civil-rights/