Bernie Sanders (1941- ), a socialist senator from Vermont, is running for US president in 2016. He is running as a Democrat to the left of Hillary Clinton.
Positions: He is for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, paid family leave, free university education, universal healthcare, Israel, and weak gun control. In Congress he opposed the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, TPP, Obama’s cuts to Social Security and Obama’s tax cuts for the rich. He sees Denmark as a model for the US.
Favoured by: young White voters.
Unlike Hillary Clinton:
- He is a socialist standing up for working people, not a capitalist standing up for banks and big business. Most of his money comes from small contributions of $200 or less. He can win elections even when outspent.
- He is not a snake, or at least does not seem like one.
Like Obama:
- He is idealistic in speeches but pragmatic in office. He is good at giving speeches that appeal to people’s high hopes, but once in office he is more about doing the most good for the most people under the given circumstances. Republican Senator John McCain says he is “passionate”, “strong-willed” but also “result-oriented”.
- He is a class reductionist, helping Black people mainly by helping less-well-off White people. Ta-Nehisi Coates says that for Blacks this is like putting a bandage on a gunshot wound: it helps, but it is not enough.
His speeches are given in a loud, rough voice in his native New York Jewish accent. Favourite words: grotesque, abysmal, horrific and immoral.
Sanders’s father came from Poland. Many in his family who stayed behind died in the Holocaust. Sanders concludes:
“An election in 1932 ended up killing 50 million people around the world.”
In the 1940s and 1950s, Sanders grew up in a lower-middle-class neighbourhood in the Flatbush, Brooklyn part of New York. It was then heavily Jewish but, like Sanders himself, its Jewishness was more cultural than religious. He went to James Madison High School, which gave us Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senator Chuck Schumer, Andrew Dice Clay and Chris Rock. He was there the same time as singer Carole King and Judge Judy.
After a year at Brooklyn College he went to the University of Chicago. He studied political science, but learned far more on the streets: he joined CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) and took part in protests against segregated public schools and university-owned housing.
When he and his first wife visited Vermont they fell in love with the place. They moved there just before the wave of back-to-the-land hippies. Shortly after, in 1969, he had a son – by his girlfriend!
Throughout the 1970s he ran for public office, but did not win till 1980, when he became mayor of Burlington. Instead of gentrification or disfiguring the waterfront of Lake Champlain with high-rises, he made Burlington more liveable by helping the poor buy homes. Burlington kept him on as mayor throughout the 1980s.
Since 1991, Vermont has been sending him to Congress to represent them.
– Abagond, 2016.
Update (February 7th): He voted for Bill Clinton’s mass incarceration policies in the form of the 1994 Crime Bill. He is for drone warfare.
Sources: Especially the New Yorker (2015) and The Atlantic (2016).
See also:
- Posts about Bernie Sanders
- The 2016 election for US president
- Barack Obama
- Democrat
- The White liberal guide to Black people
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Holocaust
- gentrification
- New York English
557
Abagond 
Abagond, are you feeling the burn? I get more and more skeptical about voting as i age. -_-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Come on, we need a class system.
“Some will win, some will lose, some were born to sing the blues” – Steve Perry
LikeLike
Even if his totally glorious and superb stance on the Palestine genocide is true, i’m still voting for Bernie, until he gets worse than the rest. It’s not like i have any other choice. Is it that simple to just restart the government and fix everything in the world’s problems by protest?
Most governments have nukes and all governments have armies in some capacity, and everyone’ll get killed if the threat level for them rises too high. Why is it wrong to be pragmatic? This is the bliss (“nirvana”, altho that’s not what nirvana is) fallacy.
Anyone who says “i’m not voting” for the bliss fallacy is essentially a selfish wasp that thinks the world can be magically solved in five minutes if everyone in the right mindset united, inspite of the definite threat of worse conditions looming over many people’s heads if the wrong person gets elected.
Oh, also, why would anyone be so naive to think third parties have a chance? Didn’t the most successful one, the Whig party, only win the presidential election twice?
Some models for the US i see are the Iroquois Confederacy, old Jamtland, or Zomia. But for now, i guess Sweden, Botswana, or Cuba will do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am a bit conflicted over Sanders. On the one hand, he seems to offer some of the best economic policy for the nation as a whole — replicating the European model which is important to get health care to the poor (of all race groups). On the other hand, though, the ignoring of the race dimension in favor of class reductionism seems problematic because race and class are both important and distinctive dimensions of American oppressional experience, yet kyriarchically intertwined so you can’t just discuss or address one without discussing or addressing the other.
I myself am unsure of who to vote for, although I’d like to vote for someone. I’ve got conflicting interests in that class-wise, I am in the “poor” group that Sanders’ health and economic policies would be targeted at and so it would be in my own interest to vote for him, yet on the other hand I don’t want to shortchange Blacks by voting for something not in their best interest, as besides being fairly pro-Black in my worldview I have also been involved in some pro-Black related causes which thereby commits me more firmly to upholding their interests. I admit that my mind is not free of “racist” thinking, but nevertheless I struggle to try to remove it (I am “White”, by the way, if you don’t know already). Furthermore, Sanders seems to be the only one who looks to have good a shot at improving the general economy for all and helping to put a brake on US imperialistic ambition in the larger world.
Does anyone have any good ideas for what to do? It’s a pickle. Although I suppose, putting a “bandage” as described by Abagond, even if it’s all that he does, is not the same as further traumatizing the wound, so maybe it’s not really voting against Black interest even if it doesn’t really help much. Although I’d want to hear more opinions from the people on this site.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” yet on the other hand I don’t want to shortchange Blacks by voting for something not in their best interest, as besides being fairly pro-Black in my worldview I have also been involved in some pro-Black related causes which thereby commits me more firmly to upholding their interests. I admit that my mind is not free of “racist” thinking, but nevertheless I struggle to try to remove it (I am “White”, by the way, if you don’t know already). Furthermore, Sanders seems to be the only one who looks to have good a shot at improving the general economy for all and helping to put a brake on US imperialistic ambition in the larger world.”
.
Good luck in finding that elusive candidate, the man (or woman) that can get to the oval office and remember their grandiose campaign promises, let alone fulfill them.
Even if a SPECIAL and UNIQUE person wins this office, she/he is limited by what he/she can accomplish by both the Senate and Congress, and the Supreme Court, not to mention his/her ultra rich bosses that hardly anyone talks about. Oh, and lets not forget that little nation called Israel! Absolutely no one rises to the POTUS with first placating the most powerful lobby in Amerika, the Zionist AIPAC!
This is not a government that will permit anyone to champion the common man. This is a government for the rich, by the rich, of the rich. The rest of us are only a means to their end.. more wealth. More power. For THEM.
Whomever is (s)elected (short of an Amerikan revolution that likely won’t happen) can only continue the policies and practices already in place. Invariably, it will be more lunacy.
Inch by inch, bit by bit, can you not see in which direction THEY are taking Amerika?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Shortly after, in 1969, he had a son – by his girlfriend!”
Is this considered controversial? I mean, it totes isn’t in European terms but I’ve heard US is more conservative in this sense.
LikeLike
@Mira
It depends on the individual person. There is a solid 50/50 split at least where i live (DC). I think Abagond was implying Bernie cheated on his wife.
LikeLike
@ mike4ty4
Voting for Senator Sanders will not “shortchange” black people in anyway. But voting against him in my humble opinion certainly will. See the interview with a rapper in Atlanta. Look I am from the state run by the Clintons for a long time and met them. Opportunists is the description that came to mind. Believe me, they KNOW and DO dog whistle politics whenever it counts for them. In fact they did it so well they pissed Jimmy Carter off during the 2008 election. And who pisses off Jimmy Carter?. I guess the best person to ask would be President Obama himself . I just got a small peek…But he and others would know the real deal. They always take the black vote for granted and I see why….BECAUSE THEY CAN! And of course Mr Clinton had his sister Souljah moment and recently apologized for locking up more people of color than ever. Apologize my a**. He helped ruin the lives of many in my generation in order to look tough on crime….look up Southern Strategy. Oh and HE was the NAFTA president! They always ..like other Democrats in the past..threw us and our concerns under the bus.
Your vote is yours…keep digging.. they gotta earn it ….let your heart and mind guide you.
LikeLike
Is the election cycle a planned diamat exercise?
LikeLike
Im feelin the new war and peace tv show my wife not so much its interesting
LikeLike
yeah ard i think it is
LikeLike
@jacque: You’re probably right. As I said, even if his solution is only a “bandage” as Abagond says, a bandage at least doesn’t hurt, even if it doesn’t help as much as we’d like it to, and it’s probably in the best interest of the country overall that someone like him get in, than someone like, say, Donald Trump.
LikeLike
Usually you just have to take the best of the worst. Most of the candidates seem to be talking about stabilizing what is(or worse), Bernie is the only one talking about change. Not that it matters that much – it seems congress is where things get done(or not).
LikeLiked by 1 person
@deuce
Bernie Sanders is not the only one talking about change. Most Republican candidates want sweeping changes to the tax code, repealing “Obamacare,” defunding Planned Parenthood, criminilising abortion, stop raising the debt ceiling, cut spending, etc. Rand Paul wants to audit the Fed…that’s a huge change.
Sanders is just farthest to the left. The problem with Sanders is the change he’s calling for is most unrealistic. And if he thinks he can do it by significantly hiking taxes for most American workers (including the middle class), which he wants to do, then he and his followers are delusional.
But it’s a good campaign strategy.
LikeLike
It’s a tight race between Senator Sanders and Hilary Clinton. He appears to be concerned about the poor and disenfranchised. But they all talk a good game.
LikeLike
sorry about that alien link someone was talking about conspiracy sites…
but hillary is flagged for sending top secret emails from her house probably over her damn cable modem please
LikeLike
Vampire Weekend will be playing at Bernie’s Iowa rally that made me chuckle a little. Uncle Bernie gets some cool points. Symone Sanders who is Bernie Sanders Press Secretary is very sharp and on her A game.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
And a prayer for Ted Cruz that he knocks the wind out of Trump’s sails.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uriel,
Thanks for the clarification. I think politicians’ love/sex life is rarely seen as a dealbreaker or even a minus in Europe (sometimes to the laughable levels *cough* Berlusconi *cough*).
LikeLike
Lord of Mirkwood,
Everybody knows Sauron is more powerful, duh.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also, people, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Trump’s victory in the Republican race almost a guaranteed win for the Democratic candidate in the elections?
What I mean is, wouldn’t it be (much?) easier for a Democrat to win against Trump than anyone else? Following this logic, shouldn’t all people who vote Democrat root for Trump?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Abagond
I’m with Cenk Uygur that Ted Cruz might be the one person even scarier then Donald Trump.
@ Mira
I agree on the role of sexual mores in European politics. It pretty much is only a problem if you venture into non-consensual fields like DSK. Multiple marriages or affairs are no prolem even with people who are a generation younger.
LikeLike
Kartoffel,
Yeah, obviously, criminal behavior such as rape and what not is not praised but nobody cares about a politician having a mistress or an out of wedlock child or being a cheater.
I mean, if we’re at Berlusconi, heck, even the non-consensual thing is dubious. There are many documented cases of him harassing random women and while it painted him in a less than stellar light it wasn’t seen as a dealbreaker.
While in the US… Well, remember Clinton.
LikeLike
People put too much stock in the Iowa caucus. Lest we forget which Republican won last time: Rick Santorum.
@Mira
“I think politicians’ love/sex life is rarely seen as a dealbreaker or even a minus in Europe”
France is a good example. The president was elected as an unmarried man shacking up with someone, whom he later cheated on while in office.
In the US, I don’t think any presidential candidate could make it without being married and certainly wouldn’t survive an affair.
“Also, people, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Trump’s victory in the Republican race almost a guaranteed win for the Democratic candidate in the elections?”
Average poll results suggest any of the Republican front runners, Trump, Cruz or Rubio would lose to Hillary if the general election were held now.
LikeLike
@ Mira
The conventional wisdom is that Trump would be easier to beat, but Trump has defied plenty of conventional wisdom already, so I would not bet on that. Therefore I think Cruz world be easier to beat.
Also, the press has been giving Trump and his hate speech tons of free air time because he has been leading in the opinion polls. The sooner that stops the better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abagond,
Good point. Trump defies logic and reason so maybe it’s for the best to be eliminated from the race before it’s too late.
LikeLike
resw77,
You’re right. France is a better example because Berlusconi was seen as a joke and embarrassment while France’s politicians with mistresses and children out of wedlock (I think there were more than one French politician along those lines) were seen as serious people and their love/sex history did not ruin their reputation in any way. It was treated as a personal thin that in no way affects politics or the person’s character.
As I understand, we are still away from the day where the president of the US can be an unmarried parent or something.
LikeLike
It could be that the vote for Sanders was more of a vote against Clinton who is seen as the insider establishment canidate. It may not mean that the Sander votes represent his ideas necessarily.
All the Republican canidates are dangerous when it comes to foreiners policy. They would end the Iran deal and make Cuba a rough nation again.
The Evengelical Christian canidates are likely to nominate Supreme court justices that would over turn reproductive rights and gay marraige. Their could be up to four retirements on the court coming up over the next four years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would seem like an extreme risk for the Clinton campaign to game the voting. What would she gain, four or five delegates? On the other hand it the result sounds rather unlikely.
LikeLike
I’m reading feelthebern.org.
Bernie Sanders readily admits to the discrimination black people face, but none of his solutions address it.
For example, he admits a resume with a black name gets less call backs than the same resume with a white name. He admits that Black people with criminal records have a harder time getting a job than whites with criminal records but his solution is free pre-k and college, and reduced sentencing for nonviolent offenses. That’s well and good, but that doesn’t address the the issue of discrimination against blacks in the workforce based on race.
I feel like he or maybe just feelthebern.org is trying to mislead us about his focus or lack thereof on racial discrimination.
I’d rather he give his reasons for not addressing racial injustice instead of trying to mislead me into thinking he has a plan to address it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Lord of Mirkwood
You are making Solesearch’s point: Sanders is a class reductionist. None of the things you listed would do anything about racial justice. They help Black people only to the extent that they are like White people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Lord of Mirkwood
If Sanders wants to win, he will have to take Black concerns seriously. He has no trouble doing that when he wants the vote of, say, gun owners in Vermont. Why are Black people any different?
LikeLike
@ Solesearch
I noticed that too. He understands that the US is racist but is unwilling to do anything about it. There is a name for that: abstract liberalism. It is part of colour-blind racism:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/colour-blind-racism-the-four-frames/
LikeLike
I was wondering if Bernie Sanders’ unwillingness to address racism in the USA has more to do with himself being colour-blind, or his need to retain his colour-blind supporters (who truly believe “It’s class, not race”).
I think he needs to throw out a few bones. He must put out a few things to appease black and other POC voters without offending the colour-blind white ones. A truly clever candidate would figure out how to navigate that racial tightrope.
Obama could not do it. If he threw out any bones to black voters, the whites would make a heyday out of that (ie, he is forced to appear colour blind). But maybe Sanders could figure out a way to do it (if his campaign is truly thinking about it). Nobody would think that he only cares about blacks if he did do anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ jefe
I think with Sanders last summer it was more his colour-blind racism than a political calculation. He seemed to have been blindsided by Black Lives Matter:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/marissa-johnson/
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile was not. In fact, she was able to put them on the back foot:
https://abagond.wodpress.com/2015/08/21/when-hillary-clinton-met-black-lives-matter/
But that Sanders still maintains a class reductionist course all these months later has come from political calculation, from thinking he will lose more White votes than he can possibly gain in Black votes.
It will be interesting to see what he does in South Carolina where that calculation is flipped on its head: there are more Black Democratic voters in that state than White ones.
He may have written it off. He may come out with anti-racist policies, saving them till after Iowa and New Hampshire. Or he may try to argue that Clinton is worse for Black people than he is. Unfortunately, Sanders voted for her husband’s mass incarceration policies.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
How many of those things would any President have the power to do without the support of the solidly Republican Congress? Maybe 1?
Sanders were genuine, he would tell his supporters this truth instead of feeding them empty promises in order to get elected.
LikeLike
After much consideration,
I’ve decided to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders is not the honest man many of you claim him to be.
I can’t vote for someone who readily identifies racism but whose policies don’t reflect that belief. Bernie Sanders believes black people are culturally dysfunctional. That our main problem is that we don’t value education and commit too much crime. Too many people are under the impression he is different. He is misleading the people and I ain’t voting for him.
I’m voting for Hillary because she recognizes that racism has to be addressed by government action.
Black people don’t matter to Bernie Sanders, so nothing he says matters to me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOM,
I don’t debate white people about racism.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, yeah, being a bunch of managerial black types, they were eager and impressed to interface with a potential employer. If they were serious they would have produced a citizen’s bill of rights dealing with such problems as removal of voting rights, mass poisoning, etc.
No, nothing about Sanders is ‘honest’ including his vaunted ‘socialism’. Your choice of Clinton over Sanders is absurd, the sins you ascribe to Sanders were committed by Clinton’s husband with her full support, but, hey she’s a woman, right? American electoral politics is based on pure magical thinking.
Correct, but why should he have to tell anybody anything? people have been disenfranchised, poisoned with lead, shot down in the streets for reasons that hardly warrant such treatment. Massive social disobedience is the order of the day not some bullshit election, where the choices run from bad to worse.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@LOM
“Fine, then, I win by default”
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
So, “Winning” is shutting up your opponent? I would think in this case “winning” would have been convincing Solesearch that Bernie was the better candidate.
You crack me up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ LOM
So, yes. Winning does = being the last person standing rather than actually changing your opponent’s viewpoint.
LikeLike
Lord of Mirkwood
This isn’t a tennis match though and she was clear on why she was not voting for him. Besides you are a joke 5o debate, and like many have realized you are a waste of time.
LikeLike
Oh, and I’m done, so you win by default.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOM,
You are a racist. Bernie Sanders is a racist. I know you know that, I just want to assure you I know it too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kiwi,
Yep it has nothing to do with what I actually said. I voted for Obama because he is black. My poor ignorant black female self would be completely lost if a black man ever ran against a white woman for the Democratic nomination.
There are black people way more articulate than me who have explained my sentiment in depth. If they couldn’t help you understand, I can’t either.
Hopefully, black people can make y’all understand by not voting for his abstract liberal ass. Don’t come with no progressive long shot stuff and then exclude black people. GTFOH, Kiwi!
LikeLike
Kiwi,
Plenty of Black women, children, and men
have died because of racism. A lot of Black women, children, and men have been protesting about that, but I guess Berne ain’t the only oblivious one.
I’m about to put you in the same category as LOM, if you keep downplaying black suffering.
Why do I have to explain this? It funny how convenient it is to forget black people are dying and suffering. There is always some greater purpose WE have to sacrifice ourselves for. In this racist world, black people always come last.
I’m not saying put Middle Eastern lives on the back burner. I’m not saying nothing can be done about the suffering they endure. I’m not saying they gotta wait. Bernie Sanders is the one saying racism doesnt matter. That nothing can realistically be done about it. His supporters are saying black people should just wait and that Bernie has done enough. I’m not saying Middle Easterners, Mexicans, Native Americans or anyone else has to wait or be excluded.
Black lives matter doesn’t mean Middle Eastern lives don’t matter.
Again, funny how easily black suffering takes a backseat with you people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Update: Sanders voted for Bill Clinton’s mass incarceration policies in the form of the 1994 Crime Bill. He is for drone warfare.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kiwi,
Let’s do a run down of your arguments:
1. All Lives Matter
2. Racism against blacks isn’t that bad.
3. Black people are the true racists.
Im quite surprised I haven’t read any of your recent comments, but this seems like a complete 180 from your previous posts. Did a black guy steal the Asian chick you’ve be pining for?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abagond,
Yeah, I thought about pointing out the ways Bernie Sanders isn’t helping Arabs, but I wanted to stick to my main points that he is not honest and is deliberately misleading people about his support for anti-racism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Lord of Mirkwood
Sanders voted the 1994 Crime Bill. Therefore by your own reasoning he is racist.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwoood
You have. Some of them are recorded on this very blog. They have been pointed out to you – by several people. You choose not to believe them.
It is because of what you say, not your skin colour that people think you are racist. I do not remember so many people calling, say, Michael Jon Barker racist.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
We all make mistakes in our youth. I would not read too much into what they did in the early 1960s – unless they are still doing it.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
You mean ordinary White people. For ordinary White people, classism causes more direct harm than racism. For ordinary Black people it is the other way round.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abagond, where did you find out about Bernie’s voting for the crime bill and his support for drones? It looks like whichever democrat gets into office, it’ll be a 3rd term of the Obama administration.
LikeLike
All I can say is:
IDK not Trump tho
LikeLike
” on Sun 7 Feb 2016 at 13:36:44
Lord of Mirkwood
@Abagond
You are right about the Crime Bill. Maybe Bernie thought it would be enforced fairly?”
Yup, magical thinking at its best, akin to the Greek voters thinking that Alexis Tsipras, another self-styled ‘socialist’, was going to save Greece from the depredations of finance capital. No difference between any of the politicians running for president because they are all backed by the same monied class. Lordy, you’ll probably be tempted to claim that the “Bern” is different? If he is would you care to tell me what he discussed with Obama when they recently met at the White House?
LikeLike
LOM
“Maybe Bernie thought it would be enforced fairly?”
Sure mass incarceration should always be done fairly lmao
Maybe some of that public sector prison guard Union money helped influence his vote.
“I have never had a racist thought in my life.” lmao
Abagond said, “I do not remember so many people calling, say, Michael Jon Barker racist.”
I’ve written racist stuff on this blog. The difference is I’m more self aware of my racism. Being “anti racist” doesn’t make me a magical white person. My mind is wired to think like a racist. Recognizing white supremacy for what it is doesn’t extract a white person from being a part of it. I can control my personal interactions with people but that’s it.
Solesearch said “I’m voting for Hillary because she recognizes that racism has to be addressed by government action.”
The same government that mass incarcerates POC because its lucrative and drones Brown people because they can? I could go on and on about the history of the U.S. and just how ingrained systemic racism is within our political system. This idea that Hillary really cares is delusional. Hillary sees racism as a political chip to be played and never saw a photo op with a Black family victimized by State aggression or the Justice system she didn’t like.
Bernie’s phony “revolution” is his political chip.
In my opinion their is nobody running for president worth voting for.
I can “not vote” and feel good about myself for not participating in perpetuating the System. But as a white male I have that privilege. In my life nothing will change whether it be a Democrat or Republican president. That’s the nature of White Supremacy within “our” political system and within the American Empire.
I wish voting made a difference but I’m not seeing it. 50 years from now the majority of voters will be non white. But unless the System is deconstructed and rebuilt on a completely different framework, all those non white votes will still be maintaining white supremacy.
As Gro Jo pointed out, that unless their is Massive social disorder and I’ll add a paradigm shift in recognizing white supremacy and a movement towards rights for all people, then nothing is going to change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“monied [SIC]” Lordy, don’t get cute with me monied is a perfectly acceptable variant of moneyed. Now tell me where the “Bern’s” money is coming from, because I recall Obama running the same kind of scam when he initially ran for president.
“Bernie is going to get those corporations out of government.” How?
“Add to this the raising of the minimum wage, mass job creation, busting the oil companies and stopping climate change, raising taxes on Wall Street and putting an end to their criminality, universal healthcare, and free college. And there you have it! The system is fixed.”
You mean like Tsipras fixed Greece? Like Francois Hollande fixed France? Etc.?
Socialists have a record over 100 years old in Europe, Canada and Latin America, what’s Bernie going to do that others who failed haven’t done? Why is he not calling for the nationalization of the banks, oil companies, pharmaceuticals and other industries that the public already paid for through subsidies and the bailout? What did he and Obama discuss when they met?
LikeLike
Bernie Sanders may not be getting money from Wall Street but he is getting money from Unions. Both the teamsters and the AFL/CIO have Locals that represent both law enforcement and prison guards. In fact the Teamsters are his second largest doner. While Bernie has come out against private prisons, that’s largely from pressure from the Teamsters who want those jobs to be Union jobs not private sector.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528
https://iupa.org/ AFL/CIO Law enforcement union.
So while Bernie may talk about prison reform and mass incarceration, if he is getting donations from these Unions you can be sure, if elected, he won’t be throwing these hard working Americans out of work.
LikeLike
Lordy, I don’t care where Bernie gets his loot from, what I want to know is what his ‘socialist’ policies are. Your quote from his website was written by conservative not a socialist. When is your hero going to propose the usual stuff socialists are supposed to be for, like nationalization of basic industry? How about worker’s councils to run the plants and offices? The stuff he’s talking about was done by FDR in the 30’s.
LikeLike
He also supports common core–something I find particularly frightening for education. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-no-great-white-hope-for-black-america/
LikeLiked by 1 person
@MichaelJonBarker
Good point. Sanders does indeed accept money from unions, which are legal corporations and also special interest groups that may expect something in return just like any other corporation that donates to a candidate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you haven’t seen SNL’s latest take on the Sanders campaign, see it here while it lasts:
(https://youtu.be/nn4tP7ogWIA)
It’s hilarious if you are familiar with Curb Your Enthusiasm.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@resw77 – that SNL was hilarious. “cough and a shake”. LOL! I think I’ll vote Bernie just for the hell of it.
LikeLike
Was Bernie in the Civil War? Else, why would you be interested in him?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I love conservatives! They make fantastic jokes fodder!
LikeLike
Thinking about this some more.
Sanders could put more effort in trying to teach less well off whites that it is not in their best interests to ally their political efforts with rich white people in order to maintain a distance from black people. That it hurts them in the long run.
Because,
The other side will try unnervingly to advertise that Sanders’ programs, even if aimed at helping less-well-off white people, might disproportionately help too many black people. That is what turns the less-well-off white people off from supporting their own self interests.
The more Sanders tries to make it NOT about race, the more the other side will make it about race. Failing to insert the counter-argument propaganda may cause him to lose more white voters.
Sanders’ need to teach the white public that by aiming to help off all less-well-off white people, his programs may also help blacks, and this is not a bad thing. It is bad for them to worry about that and then side with the rich whites who do not have their interests in their heart. Do they want affordable health care or not?
He also needs to convince black voters that helping less-well-off people, especially white ones, will help them more than hurt them. For example, any of the programs that he is espousing, he can state that he will make sure that race will not be a barrier to any of them. For example, what about redlining based on race? Is he afraid to talk about this, or does he sincerely believe it would be a non-issue?
I don’t think it would stray too much from his messages to insert these things. But he ignores them at his own peril.
Maybe he is waiting until after the primaries?
LikeLike
@res curb your enthusiasm? i watched about 13 seconds of that show once and it was way too much
@mirkwood http://www.mtv.com/shows/shannara
medicare for all
LikeLike
@Jabari Jones
I forget where I read it, maybe from some Clintonista writing for The Root. But you can google either and find plenty of references. I was not hallucinating.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found an article that explained it, Abagond. Thanks for replying.
LikeLike
Anybody have an opinion about Bernie’s performance in tonight’s debate so far?
LikeLike
oh please it is considered 33 million undocumented us contemporaneous inhabitants
LikeLike
@Pumpkin
Yeah I’ve heard that same opinion from a lot of people I know. But I think that Bernie can hold his own when it comes to foreign affairs. Right now he’s criticizing Henry Kissinger
LikeLike
@ Solesearch
Thanks for pointing out precisely what’s been bothering me about Kiwi lately. If I didn’t know better, he’s either showing his true colors or someone’s hijacked his account.
Kiwi, step away from the keyboard and go get some fresh air.
LikeLike
@ Michael Jon Barker
Sadly, that’s precisely how I feel about this entire election. Hillary represents the centralist DLC faction that values “business as usual.” Bernie represents the enlightened liberal contingient who’ll stand with blacks for the street cred and photo op, but not really give a flying f**k about their plight. And those are the only two remotely liberal candidates we’re seeing in the mainstream media. Martin O’Malley is just a filler for the occasional debate.
Then there’s Michael Bloomberg, a stalking horse who I suspect to be a Plan B if Trumpmania gets too out of hand.
The GOP candidates are a bunch of pillocks, down to the last man and woman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like some of Sanders platforms but he’s too idealistic in the face of the GOP led Congress and Hilary is a pragmatist and I like that but she has the tendency to change positions for political expediency and her foreign policy is the same ol shit. I’m not satisfied at all. I’ll vote for whoever the nominee is but that’s isn’t say much. I have to say though, I’m not feeling some of Bernie Sander’s supporters at all. They are very condescending on race and think they can ignore it by focusing in on class issues.They remind me of the whiny white left who bitched back in 09, ’10 that Obama wasn’t a Che Guerra or Malcolm X. These guys are never satisfied and they wonder why so many blacks find them obnoxious. They are the ones who tell us “When I see you, I don’t see you as black”. Maybe that’s why I respect Obama a lot because idealistic, while it sounds nice doesn’t mesh well with reality. Idealism is good for motivation, but it’s not good political against the face of a well financed, media coddled force that dumps huge sums of money onto candidates buying votes. And as long as Americans are uninformed and dumbed down, voting against their own interests, encouraging racism, there isn’t much systemic change you can see and Obama found that out the hard way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Kiwi
What is wrong or so bad being a Black supremacist?
LikeLike
I just googled Black supremacy and was surprised that it espouses Black superiority over others. I had taken it interchangeably for Black power.
For me 2 cents, I have never read any of Mack Lyons comment that smacks of whatever is he is being accused of-racism and Black supremacism.
I do not wish to take sides.
LikeLike
^^typos: my;comments
LikeLike
@Kiwi
I explained my faux pas, interchaning Black supremacy with Black power.
My short answer would be there is absolutely everything wrong in the world with white supremacy.
After really having enjoyed your previous commentary, I am disappointed by your seeming about turn.
I am noticing with some irony, how a Black man and Black woman on this thread are castigated and accused of racism.
There is everything wrong, too in accusing a Black person of racism .
LikeLike
Although Solesearch and Mack Lyons do not need my defending them.
Apology.
I am derailing this thread.
LikeLike
@taotesan
I don’t think anything solesearch says reeks of racism or black supremacy. I personally would not vote for Hilary or Bernie, but I do feel she was clear in her reasons why Bernie was not for her. Unless Mack Lyons has said something crazy lately, I don’t think he fits into that category either. Then again I will be honest and say I don’t read all or every comment to begin with.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Erica Garner, daughter oi Eric Garner, endorses Bernie Sanders in a powerful ad:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syln8IkOIqc)
LikeLike
that goes what if blacks had guns and ocean going vessels first
LikeLike
@v8driver
Historians argue about this but there are documented instances of ocean-going vessels in both West Africa and East Africa.
West Africa sailors made it to the Americas, set up (peaceful) trading posts with the Inca of South America, the Olmecs of Central America and the Arawak’s of the Caribbean.
East African sailors participated in the rich Indian Ocean trade routes between East Africa, India, Maylasia and China.
All African sea contacts were reportedly peaceful and centered on trade, not conquest.
Guns may have changed the situation, but Africa is a pretty rich continent. Africans had little incentive to barge onto other people’s land and steal, murder and rape them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
re: Abagond
That was indeed a powerful ad.
Is there any other black spokesperson making endorsements for the primaries?
Will this be in time to make a difference for South Carolina?
LikeLike
@Jefe
Black endorsements I am aware of:
Hillary Clinton:
– Trayvon Martin’s mother
– mayor of Flint, Michigan
– John Lewis (Selma)
– Congressional Black Congress PAC
– some top pastors
Bernie Sanders:
– Eric Garner’s daughter
– Cornel West
– Danny Glover
– Shaun King
– Michelle Alexander (“The New Jim Crow”)
– Ta-Nehisi Coates
Donald Trump:
– Azealia Banks
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t know what to say about Azealia. Her twitter is a mess and she is often controversial out of nowhere. Then she posts some ok stuff. I could buy that she has negative ideas about immigration, though.
LikeLike
Bernie is THE ONLY candidate who will create a true democracy for ordinary Americans.
How about US Grant? Why not Honest Abe?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah… but how about the always pivotal satanic vote?
http://www.infowars.com/bern-like-hell-satanists-rally-behind-socialist-bernie-sanders/
LikeLike
Totally off topic, perhaps, but lol at Americans seeing socialism as the ultimate evil. Free healthcare and free education, oh, the horror.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mira, how is it “free?”
LikeLike
King,
Yeah, I know it’s not “free” free because the employers pay, but still. You have your own salary (your agreed money per month, week, year, whatever) – it is the money you agreed to and nobody takes any of it from you so, in essence, you don’t actually pay anything yourself – your employer pays for your health insurance and other things on top of your agreed salary. And yeah, it can be tricky for small business owners but most of it comes from companies and they can just cry me a river with their profits.
Look, I am not saying socialism is perfect in any way, but ignoring positive sides of it because it’s a scary word for Americans is just unproductive and damaging for people. Don’t worry, USians, nobody will put you in gulags for entertaining the possibility to maybe, perhaps you don’t have to pay $30,000 (or whatever) for your kid to get university education. I mean, these things should be basic human rights.
LikeLike
“Bernie is THE ONLY candidate who will create a true democracy for ordinary Americans.”
.
LOM how can you be a history instructor and not know that the US government political structure is NOT a “democracy” and NEVER has been??
I’m very happy that my children aren’t in your indoctrination center!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Mira
I think you were oversimplifying your argument in your first post there. The money always has to come from somewhere… and that means it always has to be taken from somewhere else.
It seems that the best case is mixing elements of capitalism and socialism—two very imperfect systems. But pure socialism is just as bad, if not worse, than pure capitalism.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
What is a “true democracy,” who are “ordinary Americans” and how will Bernie Sanders create a “true democracy” for them?
LikeLike
@King
I totally agree.
The problem with socialists like Bernie Sanders is that they don’t know how to generate money without taking it from people’s hard earned income. His only solution to generating more money is higher taxes. That includes higher income taxes for the dwindling middle class.
I think it’s much more noble for a government to provide things like healthcare and education for those that want/need it without stealing half or more of workers’ incomes. It is possible if the government operated more like a business and less like a thief.
LikeLike
Lincoln, Grant, and Franklin Roosevelt are long dead. What we can do is carry their legacy.
I bloody well hope not!
LikeLike
King,
Yeah, the money has to come from somewhere, but it’s better that it comes from those who have more money (capitalists) than those who do not have the money. Like, people should not die if they don’t have money to pay for a doctor – in such a rich country as USA. It is just morally wrong in the sense of violation of human rights. And if it means that a company has to pay some money for it, so be it. I sure won’t cry for them.
As a regular citizen, you enjoy these things for free, the way you might get a free glass of water in a restaurant. Yeah, that water and glass and whatever still have to be paid for by someone – but not you.
The thing is, as I understand, employers DO pay these days (benefits). It’s just that it doesn’t go to all people. Where does that money go?
I wonder, what’s so wrong with socialism compared to capitalism? I don’t mean on the mess with ideology and communist economy (which wasn’t bad in theory but the problem is that it was too good to be true – humans are just not honest nor altruistic for that). But socialistic democracy a la Scandinavian model or whatever? Idk, it just seems to me that Americans are kind of digging their own grave here because of the connotations of the word “socialism” and not because of what it might bring.
LikeLike
resw77,
The thing here is not with the government, but companies – companies are people’s enemies here (well, government can be too, but that’s a different issue). The way I see it, government is too passive and too forgiving to the companies instead of regular people.
LikeLike
http://ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm#Crime
LikeLike
I saw a funny meme come through my newsfeed the meme is President Obama holding a sign that says”It’s okay Bernie John Lewis didn’t endorse me in 08 either.
LikeLike
@ Mira
Which is why I said that a mixture of capitalism and socialism is best. You need capitalists in order to have a tax base. You need socialism in order to stop/slow the cycle of revolution and political deposition. You cannot have 100% of either.
@ resw77
“The problem with socialists like Bernie Sanders is that they don’t know how to generate money without taking it from people’s hard earned income. His only solution to generating more money is higher taxes. That includes higher income taxes for the dwindling middle class.”
I agree. Bernie does need to come up with a better way to expand the economy. When it comes down to it everybody does not deserve to make the same amount of money. Some people work harder, are more creative, or simply produce more than others. I have no problem with people being paid more or less based on what they produce/create.
Both capitalism and socialism can be unfair, and therefore unfairness has to be addressed in either system. But when you are dealing with limited resources people can either have resources rationed to them, they can compete for them, or they can have a mixture of the two. I’d say the mixture works best to date.
LikeLike
King,
Yeah, it’s not like I’m vouching for communist utopia or something. I mean, I was born and raised in a socialist country (well, sort of… We kind of got the best of both worlds in a way) so I know the drawbacks. But I also know the benefits in a way someone who never lived in socialism doesn’t know. Hence me rambling here.
What it seems to me is that “socialism” is such a charged word among Americans that it can be effectively used to scare people or make them reject an idea, no matter what it is (it doesn’t even have to be socialist in nature). Another potential problem I see here is that many Americans (surprisingly, not all of them white) think that America – as imperfect as it is – is still the best place to live on Earth (as in: yeah, here is not perfect/here might be bad, but elsewhere is sure worse) and… well, are we sure this is true? Like any other country, there are benefits and downsides of living in the US. Understanding that others do some things better (and possibly adapting those things to your benefit) would help US, but to get there people need to at least consider the possibility that some other countries maybe do something better. Which often doesn’t happen.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Mira when it comes to free health care. Education,post-secondary should be free as well. Here in Canada, the University Fees are cheap when compared to the States. I still think it should be free. I don’t have to worry about losing my shirt if I get a hang nail. Is the system perfect? No but what is?
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ Herneith
Canada is pretty much a mix of capitalism and socialism. Sure it’s a little more socialist than the US is, but I’d say it falls well within the “mix: approach.
@ Mira
Probably most people in the U.S. think Communism when they ear Socialism. But the U.S. has Social Security, WIC, Welfare, and Housing Assistance.Most people don’t see these for what they are—a socialist safety net.
LikeLike
Even communism is not as bad as Americans think – in theory. Or at least not in the same way Americans understand it. The trouble is that it can never work in reality (and technically never had – there was no communism on Earth, ever (well, maybe in early prehistory, according to the ideology)… It was an utopistic state that is not achievable in reality… yet. This is according to the ideology.
In any case, it can’t work in reality. I know a good joke about it but it’s a bit… not suitable for kids so idk if it’s safe to post here.
But yeah, I do agree with you re: social security, welfare, etc. Those are “socialist” aspects in the US. I don’t think it would harm people to extend that to healthcare and education.
LikeLike
@ Mira
But It IS extended to education. Education is not only free, but compulsory all the way to 12 grade (the end of high school). After that, Community Colleges are HEAVILY subsidized by state/federal funds. Also there are needs based grants for low income students that are all but guaranteed. If there is a gap, low interest loans are also available. All of this is also a kind of socialism.
As for health care, we have MediCare, which is essentially a single payer system for people over 65. The Veterans Administration gives blanket coverage to active duty, reserved, and retired military personnel I could go on….
The U.S. is a “mix” of socialism and capitalism. It is not now, and has never been purely capitalist. Of course, like everything, the system gets screwed up… but ALL systems get screwed up.
LikeLike
But it’s just community colleges, which are not considered as good as the, eh, what’s the word for the non-community ones? It limits people’s choices significantly. Also, healthcare is not guaranteed to all citizens, is it? I also believe there is no paid maternity leave (well, there is no law regulating that all people are allowed to have paid maternity leave), etc.
I mean, I only go by what people complain about: college debt, high costs of medical care, etc. Like, it’s great that some categories of people are covered but, eh, it could be better and many countries are doing it better so while I doubt it’s the worst on Earth there’s def room for improvement.
And yeah, obviously, systems get screwed up, but that’s not we’re talking about here (right?)
LikeLike
And yeah, when I said “free education”, I meant on all levels (from elementary school to PhD or whatever. At least to include university education).
LikeLike
@ Mira
To tell you the truth, if you go to a community college for 2 years and then transfer to a university, it looks just the same on your records as if you were at university the whole time so lang as you graduate from said university. And in every system there are some schools that are considered better than others. Do you think that is a purely socialist system that the means for educational advancement is pure meritocracy? Not party connections? Not geography or living in a big city or near the capital? Not being a member of a certain ethnic or religious majority, eh?
People’s choices are always limited by the state. Communism (for example) tends to do it a bit more directly though.
Most U.S. corporations have maternity leave. Many even have maternity leave for men now. The thing is that if you are rich in the U.S. you’re good. If you are poor in the U.S. you’re not necessarily “good” but there are a lot of programs geared towards helping you to get by. If you are middle to lower middle class then you are pretty much screwed because you make too much to qualify for a lot of the programs, but you don’t make enough to be able to pay all of your it on your own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But you have to pay for university, right… ? How?
And yeah, the key word is sure money. Of course rich people don’t have to worry about and poor people are screwed. It’s unfair. I mean, it’s impossible to achieve some sort of egalitarian utopia but I do think people should be guaranteed some things regardless of how much money they have.
I might be mistaken about maternity leave – again, I just go by what people complain about. But like with healthcare, it seems like it depends on where you work – if it’s a good company you should be fine, but if not, you’re screwed. It is not guaranteed for everyone.
And yeah, the implementation of these things suck in practice. Like, socialism as implemented in Eastern Europe in the second half of 20th century sure sucked in practice. But the idea was good and the reason it failed wasn’t because everyone had guaranteed healthcare. Nor would that make a problem in the US. But sure it won’t be perfect, you can’t expect it to be. It could be better than it is, though, especially since US is such a rich country. If anyone can afford it, it’s US.
And it’s not even that. Not that US has to implement it or anything. It’s just that I have a feeling some people reject the idea without even thinking about it once they hear the word “socialism”. Almost if you make the same suggestion but without mentioning the word, people become more open to the idea, any idea.
LikeLike
As for universities, sure there are better and worse schools but the ability to attend them should not depend on the ability to pay. Same with healthcare: it should not depend on where you work or how much you earn.
LikeLike
@King
“I have no problem with people being paid more or less based on what they produce/create”
Totally agree.
“I’d say the mixture works best to date.”
I agree for two reasons. One, people who go without necessities get desperate, survival instincts kick in, and violence usually follows. And two, if people are compassionate and want a government, then their government should resemble their compassion.
The Bernie Sanders crowd doesn’t quite understand that you can be a compassionate, providing government without taking half of the hard earned income from workers and companies.
@Mira
“The thing here is not with the government, but companies – companies are people’s enemies here.”
Then please stop using the internet since it’s provided to you by a company. Stop using a computer that a company manufactured. Stop going to the grocery store.
Well, I believe government has been a far greater enemy of blacks in America. Politicians make the laws, not companies.
“The way I see it, government is too passive and too forgiving to the companies instead of regular people.”
How so? The average individual is taxed at a lower rate than the average company (and before you say it, individuals have all sorts of deductions, exemptions and can evade taxes just like any company). Individuals also have special rights that companies don’t. So what do you mean?
@Lord of Mirkwood
I know you’re ignoring me, but you said it, so, what is a “true democracy,” who are “ordinary Americans” and how will Bernie Sanders create a “true democracy” for them?
I’m intrigued.
LikeLiked by 1 person
resw77,
I meant on companies as employers. It is my choice to buy a computer from someone if I want: I pay and I get a product in return. It is different when your life depends on income provided by a company, because it’s more than “I work and you give me money” if my life depends on it (and most people’s lives depend on employment). As in, companies are not obligated by law to provide some things to their workers, and that sucks. And I don’t mean on fancy trips to Hawaii or something. I mean on basic survival things like healthcare.
Government is too passive/goes easy on the companies because there are no laws in place making companies provide these necessary things or at least money that would go toward these things. Well, there are some laws and taxes and what not (and I know, a lot of them – it seems there are so many taxes in the US!) but somehow it doesn’t go to people. If government wants people to support it it should provide them with certain things, or at least to try to implement measures to make it possible. (Yeah, it’s too good in theory and would probably not work that well in practice, but it’s a start).
And I am not even talking about luxury things. I do not mind people who work more demanding jobs to have more money and thus to be able to afford a better lifestyle. But a minimum should be guaranteed to everyone as in, “nobody has to die in America because they can’t afford a doctor” sort of a way. Because health is not a product, it should not be a product. Human life is not a product and should not be treated as such.
LikeLike
@ Mira
The riches of the U.S. are complicated. Yes the U.S. is rich but a big part of the reason why it is so rich is because it spends so much money. It’s kind of a vicious cycle, if you know what I mean. Much of the money is never exactly “liquid.” HUGE military budget (much of it not in the “official budget.”) Buying favors and propping up governments around the world. Manipulating the world economy. Fighting expensive wars.
All of this costs money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I know. But this is precisely why free healthcare and other things I talk about can be achieved without much effort, by just transferring that money to the people. I’d cut those wars first.
But it’s also the reason why it’s so difficult to implement because there’s no way they would stop fighting those wars and wasting money on all those things just to help some poor people (many of whom are not white). So yeah, now that I think about it, it IS about government screwing up people.
LikeLike
Resw77,
“I think it’s much more noble for a government to provide things like healthcare and education for those that want/need it without stealing half or more of workers’ incomes. It is possible if the government operated more like a business and less like a thief.”
What do you mean more like a business? Like Sallie Mae?
LikeLike
@Mira
If companies want to attract the best employees, then they voluntarily provide the best benefits available. Many companies do without the government mandating it.
Those companies that don’t, don’t get the best employees. They take what they can get. The result is a company that doesn’t live up to its potential.
I disagree that not mandating companies give their employees more benefits amounts to government being too “passive” as to companies. But why don’t you demand the government provide what it wants private employers to provide?
The US Government took in $3,248,723,000,000. Over 3 Trillion. Surely that’s MORE THAN enough to provide everything that companies don’t provide their employees. But the US government doesn’t prioritize health, education, etc.
It takes your money, it gives it to foreign governments, spends it on weapons, spying, military bases around the world, it overpays employees, contractors, it overpays the overpriced private healthcare industry, and it outright loses money.
So why don’t you and Bernie Sanders support a reallocation of the huge amount of wealth that the government already takes in? Where’s the call for cleaning up the waste? Why do you need the federal government to take in more money from private income when it has a clear track record of (1) not prioritizing health, education, etc., and (2) wasting money?
LikeLike
@Solesearch
I mean the government should make money on its own and not depend on taking from private income. There are governments that do this well.
The US government, for example, has lots of assets that it pays a lot of money to keep, when it should be leveraging these assets. It should be leasing more of its land and buildings to the private sector. It should be selling unnecessary assets during the height of asset bubbles.
The US government used to generate lots of income from tariffs, but with free trade agreements, the tariff revenue is nearly gone, middle class income taxes have gone up, and American manufacturing has declined. Now we have lots of Detroits and Clevelands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t have any power on what US government does. If I had, I’d sure relocate the money from foreign “interventions”, make no mistake about that. But sadly, I don’t have any say in the matter.
Ok, so looks like no help from companies is needed, then. My bad. Looks like the situation is even worse than I thought. Sadly, I don’t have a clue what to do here, because I don’t see the US government giving up on foreign “interventions” (aka “modern form of colonialism”). You’re screwed, and so are we.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That will never happen. The military policies of the U.S. are not fought for the sake of it’s people, neither is it ever really in the control of its people. The wars will never stop. They are necessary for controlling the world.
U.S. healthcare/pharma is mostly a business anyway. it is geared towards making incredible amounts of money from the American population. Can something that makes so much money for so many be drastically managed so that it doesn’t make as much money? I have my doubts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
King,
Yeah, I agree completely on both accounts. It sucks.
So idk, the only solutions are either a) revolution and b) aliens. lol
LikeLike
Haha! But Mira, that’s the beauty of America. We have mastered the art of eternally postponing revolutions.
Haven’t you heard of the American Dream? 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ Sharinair
I am on the same page as you as regards to Solesearch and Mack Lyons’ commentary.
@ Kiwi
Mack Lyons supposed Black supremacist statement :
“Ok, so my question is this :how do we flip the racial pyramid so that, for once, the collective blacks come out on top?”
defiinition- come out on top: to succeed
synonyms: rise above , be successful, prevail, win, triumph.
To express a desire for Black people to triumph/ prevail/ succeed/ does not a Black supremacist make.
The writer expresses a desire that Black people in the context of a world turned upside down, can triumph and rise above racial oppression.
A consultation with an Oxford English Dictionary will also explain the meanings and distinctions of : to come out on top, be on top and be on top of.
To give the benefit of the doubt , perhaps it is a case of the difference of English and American definition, and if not, then it perhaps a case of Shadenfreude.
LikeLike
Kiwi suffers from Negrophobia, he is threatened by any black having power over him. Blacks are alright with him as long as they are downtrodden.
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35553947
LikeLike
Even communism is not as bad as Americans think – in theory.
The operative phrase being how Americans view it. None of these ideologies work in their purely abstract form.
Personally, I don’t mind paying more tax so people can have ready access to health care or a top notch post-secondary education. How many luxury items, tvs, cars, homes etc., does one need? I would opt for a healthier, more educated populace. This in turn. makes for more productivity over- all. However, this is as far as my socialistic sympathies go. Give everyone a good start in life. Should they choose to squander them for whatever reason that’s up to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@herneith That’s exactly what they say happened with me
LikeLike
@ Kiwi,
Can you show how the Black supremecy of Mack Lyons, Go Jro and Samali Prince personally threatens you ?
Can you should how thier Black Suprememcy threatens the white race based on comments they left on this blog?
Can you show how their Black Suprememcy power over rides default white suprememcy in Western society ?
Do you belive that racial hierarchy is apart of white suprememcy or not ?
LikeLike
The Clintons Figured They Own The Black Folk
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yYc2zwg6BE)
LikeLike
@ michaeljonbarker
I think the idea that Black Supremacy does not effect other people because Blacks are not the majority power in society is a false one. It fails to understand that Blacks can effect people within their ‘bubbles of influence’ where they ARE majority or DO have power over people of other races.
For example, a Black construction supervisor working for Turner Construction who refuses to hire Mexicans in his area because he doesn’t like the fact that they speak Spanish to one another. He feels that since he cannot understand Spanish that they may be talking about him behind his back. Therefore he simply doesn’t hire them on his Crews.
Or a Black public school teacher who feels it is her duty to take “know it all” Asian students and knock them down a peg. Refusing to call on them often and grading them more strenuously because “they all cheat” and “all they care about is getting grades.”
Black people CAN be racist, if you are not using the “racism is ONLY a social SYSTEM of oppression ” and can be nothing else. Of course, that approach simply erases all the other dictionary definitions of racism and claims it to be only one thing.
The truth is that believing that the human race is divided into ‘racial’ groupings that are superior or inferior to one another is ALWAYS a problem, no matter who is doing it, or who is in control of the larger society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps, here, I could offer part of a personal narrative.
Having grown up in the racial pigstye of South Africa, my childhood was one of EXTREME violence on many levels.(my therapist had said that what I had underwent for twenty years people undergo in war and captivity ).
So ever since a little girl, I had tried to figure out my father (and mother).
There are many of my fathers in South Africa and in places where colonialism and white domination takes place.
My father, I have come to understand, was emasculated and demoralized within the apartheid framework. His ‘pain’ was the largest in the room. His wife and childrens, victims of his impotent rage (caused by apartheid). Other men sought escape in religion or women or education or madness, my father, alcohol.
Slavery,( survival of )genocide , colonialism, and apartheid /Jim Crow (with its evil social engineering) and contemporary oppression have a
phenomenal impact on the seismic fracture of Black family.
The women’s hands are tied behind their backs (figuratively speaking) and the men also suffer unimaginable special trauma from the white man’s attempt in turning them into half men half beasts. How can men, in this case, who can’t even take care of their own psychic and spiritual needs , without something’s got to give?
Having said that, there are men who do triumph and overcome and are able to contribute their special contribution to their family and society, in spite of all obstacles.
All of us, in some way, in a white supremacist world, are subjected to violence- psychological, spiritual, cultural, environmental, political and economic. The family and gender issues have become a casualty of war in the face of the ceaseless onslaught. One should open one’s eyes to the constant propaganda being waged against Black women and men originating from the white male dominating world wide media.
I think it takes tremendous courage and wherewithal, never-ending hard work on one’s self, insight , love and compassion to overcome one’s victimhood into being a survivor who treat his / her fellows with dignity and respect. A thorough self -examination of one’ self no matter what station in life.
The degradation of spirit, where love and mutual respect seems more historical than contemporary, is dissipated in misogyny and (misandary). We cannot see things , but through a lens of distortion.
The great tragedies of private suffering wrought by self-hatred turned outward can be placed at the feet of white oppression. The Maafa has hurt us in ways we are still coming to grips with. I am not implying abdication of personal responsibility.
That does not mean that quiet revolutions within our hearts and minds should not take place.
Please, I hope my words will not be twisted. I am coming from a place of great love for Black people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aaargh ! Abagond , sorry my comment was meant for the interracial thread.
I am using a teensy phone and can’t cut and paste it .
LikeLike
@Mira
You are correct that there is no mandatory requirement in the USA for any employer to provide maternity leave and no requirement that any leave provided at employer’s discretion must be paid.
King’s counterpoint that many corporations provide some form of paid maternity leave is a misleading statement. In the USA, it functions purely as an employee benefit used to attract and retain staff. Similar to employer provided healthcare and any other employee benefit, it functions more as a form of non-cash compensation rather than any kind of social safety net.
Many, if not most people will fall through the cracks.
There is also no requirement in the USA to provide sick leave, annual leave (vacation), rest days or holiday leave. You can compare easily with charts like these. Only small Pacific Island states have zero mandatory leave like the USA.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave)
I worked over 20 years in employee benefit consulting both in the US and overseas, including international and regional offices, plus over 4 years auditing labour conditions at factories in several different countries. I also worked in the finance department of a hospital in New York city, as well as for a health insurance company too. In preparation for actuarial exams, I also had to study different countries’ approach to manage income and financial insecurity across many countries, including, for example, healthcare delivery systems.
I still find that the USA ranks at the bottom of the pack among the top couple dozen industrialized countries / territories regarding the systems available to address the various social and financial insecurity problems faced by society at large.
I don’t quite buy the argument that so much additional, but wasted money needs to be pumped in the healthcare system that is poor at providing public health because it supports so many people and jobs. That is like saying we need to prop up the tobacco industry because of the taxes it generates and the jobs that it supports.
The tobacco lobby was very powerful and effective in propping up that industry for many decades after the surgeon general declared that smoking was hazardous to health.
These things can be rerouted into other industries (eg, infrastructure, renewable energy, even environmental conservation) that also provides jobs, but also increases the welfare of society at large.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Kiwi
As a Chinese American ,with somewhat more privilege, whether you deny it not, after calling a Black commenter ‘a racist piece of s !’, separating Black supremacists from other Blacks and weakly suggesting that another is sexist, (on matters mostly concerning Black people) , how would you characterize yourself?
LikeLike
@Kiwi
You had not answered my question of how you would characterize yourself. You do not have to .
I shan’t debate any issues of racism with you.
LikeLike
My counterpoint is not misleading since I clearly state that this is the policy of most corporations, rather than any mandate from the government.
This is also mostly the case with government jobs, both state and federal. It is also negotiated as a condition of most larger union contracts. It is also the case with all branches of the U.S. Mlitary (AFI 36-3003 6.4.1.1.)
And of course, I never said that ALL U.S. jobs grant maternity leave. It is NOT a requirement for every job in the U.S.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
You can construe refrain as ignorance.
Good evening.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
If you want to twist my words around or put words in my mouth, go ahead.
This should be the last of our correspondence with each other.
LikeLike
King,
But sorry, I still maintain that your statement was misleading, because paid maternity leave, to the extent that is is provided in the USA, does not serve any purpose of any social welfare or safety net (at least that is not the company’s policy). It functions as a form of compensation or employee benefit used to attract or retain staff. The system in the USA is widely different from that found in most other countries where it is mandatory yet the onus for providing it still falls on employers.
I worked in this area and studied it for decades in my prior career, and currently I audit factories on their labour policies including maternity leave and discrimination (eg, on pregnant staff). re: the USA, it is common understanding what US govt policy regarding this is.
Even wikipedia entry of Maternity leave states this:
(However, I found info that Oman does in fact require companies to provide maternity leave.)
However, there is some requirement in a few states to allow workers to take off unpaid leave for maternity, where it is labeled a disability. Also according to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, a worker cannot be fired for taking off a limited amount of time off for maternity, provided that they work for a large employer and have at least one year of service. There are many exclusions. Three states (CA,NJ,RI) have *some* requirement for paid parental leave.
This sums it up well:
(http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/30/3465922/paid-family-leave/)
Regarding paid time off in general:
(http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/the-united-states-is-last-among-advanced-countries-in-paid-vacations-and-holidays-63857)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Resw77,
“I mean the government should make money on its own and not depend on taking from private income. There are governments that do this well.”
What governments? Are you saying those governments dont tax their people or business? Or just less than the U.S?
LikeLike
@Solesearch
Some governments don’t tax their people’s incomes at all. These days, they are few and far between: United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahamas (which now has a social security tax), Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, etc.
LikeLike
@Solesearch,
Governments can make money through, say, government-run enterprises or through the sale or lease of government land or other assets.
But each of those also has its own political issues to tackle. Should the government, for example, use its land and seize others’ via imminent domain to build and run a national high speed rail system FOR PROFIT?
Most of the land in private hands today used to belong to governments, who sold it to private owners. And nearly all that land was from land seized from native Americans. In the 19th century, some of that was “given away” to white homesteaders.
LikeLike
Hi taotesan,
(Warning, this is a long comment, but the topic at hand warrants it.)
You know I often do not see eye to eye with Kiwi on many topics. Sometimes he assumes “facts” that are not exactly true to support his argument (or uses links to studies which are merely making a hypothesis and cannot “prove” his point), and sometimes he resorts to labelling people with negative terms which look more like ad hominem attacks rather than actual arguments. Sometimes it is hard to determine whether he is arguing in good faith or just trying to pick a fight. This is not always good dinner table conversation behaviour, so I would rather just keep my mouth shut. It is not interesting.
Particularly, I did not appreciate his equating my calling out the racism embedded in one of Mack Lyons’ arguments on another thread as any support for calling him a black supremacist. That was not fair that he changed the narrative on that.
That was, until you came here and just dropped a couple of major bombs, even more insidious than the ones Kiwi was dropping. Insidious, because they were just so completely off the mark that it was even more derailing and more ad hominem-ish than his. I will happily plaud you when you contribute something insightful, but when you begin spewing out spurious (and even surly) nonsense, that has to be stopped in its tracks. At that point, you become the churlish boor at the dinner table.
I want to address your specific arguments – it has nothing to do with you personally as I don’t have any problem with that per se.
Here are some of the things you did specific to this post thread that seriously undermined the civil discourse in this discussion.
1. Black Supremacy v. Black Empowerment
I am referring to these:
On the one hand you admit that you made a mistake in defining black supremacy the same as black empowerment. But then you go on to condemn white supremacy but not black supremacy. Further down the thread it looked like you redefined it to mean black empowerment again.
What is your point exactly? Do you condemn all ideologies that espouse racial superiority or just ones that espouse white superiority?
I think black empowerment is great, and I fully support it. Black supremacy, no.
2. Supporting others’ arguments, v. making your own
Yet you suddenly took sides.
Look, I wouldn’t go to the point of labelling any of their behaviour as reflective of black supremacy per se either; one soundbite does not a race supremacist make. You should address Kiwi’s assertions directly so that one knows where you stand.
3. Accusing blacks of racism
There is absolutely nothing wrong with accusing a Black person of racism if it occurs. We, in fact, need to do that to each other. We all have blind spots. And I will even call out Kiwi when he does something blatantly racist (or performs one of the common racist tropes discussed elsewhere on this blog).
I have called out Abagond several times and will do it again if necessary. Even he admits that he did a few things before that were exceedingly cringetastic that revealed racist blind spots.
Commenters on this blog, including many black-identified ones, frequently do say something very racist, esp. colloraries of the perpetual foreigner stereotype, model minority stereotype, or revisionist narratives of US history (including black American history) which are simply wrong. These are not benign, and if it happens, it should be called out.
Whereas the racism exerted by blacks has a much more limited scope than that exerted by whites and blacks rarely have enough power to enforce racism against whites directly, they do, in fact, do it often to what I will term “3rd race people”, e.g., Asians, Latinos, Middle Easterners and Native Americans. Sometimes they will even team up with whites to enforce this sort of racism. Sometimes they will target these groups as surrogates in angst over white racism. I have seen this over and over again in the black majority communities where I grew up and which I go back to often.
4. “Come out on top”
Oh Please.
I didn’t get a strong vibe that Mack Lyons was being exceedingly race supremacist by making the statement, but please don’t change it into something else. That definition is nowhere to be found in the Oxford English dictionary. I just went through it. What you are defining is “Come out ahead” not “come out on top”.
Come out: End up as, achieve,
On top: uppermost point or dominant position
That means above everyone else.
5. Pure ad hominem
Now, who is derailing?
Not only is it irrelevant and off point and reverting to arguing at an ad hominem level, it is completely wrong and reeks of racism (Yes, at this point I called one of your behaviours as racist – I didn’t say that YOU as a person were racist.) I don’t know what revisionist school of US history and society you studied at, but you need to learn a thing or two.
By and large, Blacks do not enjoy white privilege. Neither do Asians. Blacks suffer from many racist tropes that Asians rarely have to face. But Asians suffer from a slew of racist tropes that almost never affect blacks. Do not mistake the model minority stereotype as anything that reflects reality (and conferring “privilege”). It is nothing more than a social construct designed to keep whites on top.
I do not need to remind you of the many racist tropes that harm blacks. You are very well aware of them. I also am alarmed at how the US has criminalized race, e.g., depicting blacks as thugs. Blacks are disenfranchised from participating in, and enjoying the fruits of American society. YES.
Asians are also criminalized for race. However, it has more to do with being perpetual aliens, esp. ones that are hostile to “American” interests (also called “Yellow Peril”). This is no small point. And it has also disenfranchised them from enjoying full participation in American society as well. Not in the same way as blacks, but in no less uncertain terms.
Asians face certain categories of racial criminalizations at higher rates than blacks, eg,
a. Risk of genocide and ethnic cleansing
There are many examples of where this occurred in the USA.
The worst one was the Chinese-American one. About 375,000 Chinese entered the USA in the 2nd half of the 19th century. By 1900, barely 50,000 remained. What happened? Some were expelled from the country (those that could afford it). A few fled to other countries such as Mexico or Cuba. But the overwhelming majority were outright rounded up and killed. The survivors were not allowed to marry and have children and had to carry ID cards to validate that they had the right to be in the USA, including native born US citizens. Before 1898, even native born US citizens got stripped of their US nationality.
Only Native Americans have experienced more extreme levels of genocide.
Filipinos in the USA, who had enjoyed US nationality coming from a US commonwealth nation, were stripped of it in the 1930s. Once black Americans become citizens after the Civil war, their nationality has never been stripped from them.
About 120,000 Japanese-Americans, the vast majority of which were native born Americans, were imprisoned during WWII for no other reasons other than for race. The fact that children with as little as ¼ Japanese blood or orphans raised by non-Japanese were imprisoned attests that it was purely based on race.
These few examples illustrate how they have historically been criminalized on the basis of race. After the Civil War, persons of African descent could freely immigrate to the USA and become naturalized citizens. Persons of Asian descent had to wait a whole century after blacks before they could.
Only Chinese-Americans (and possibly Mexicans) attained a level of genocide matching Native Americans (ie, levels 7 and 8) and Japanese-Americans came darn close (level 6). Asian Americans are the most likely target for future genocide in the USA.
I believe you actually knew that yet still unabashedly proclaim that is some sort of privilege.
b. Racial profiling
Blacks are racially profiled. But so are Asians. Blacks are often profiled as thugs and thieves. Asians are profiled as aliens, often hostile ones. Both affect the sense of security enjoyed by whites, but Asians are more likely viewed as ruining the very cultural fabric of “their” society. Asians are much more likely than blacks to be labelled traitors or spies and criminalized for it. Sometimes it is not on a criminal level, but more on the level of yellow peril fears. Whites fear with trepidation when an Asian buys the corner shopping strip center or take places in schools that “should go to whites”. They are much less likely to accept or trust an Asian boss or military commander, and it goes all the way to high offices in the country, such as Secretary of State, Supreme Court Justice and the President – something that blacks have all been able to do in the US.
The negative Hollywood treatment of Asians is much more extreme than for Blacks.
They even suffer from *certain* micro aggressions at a much higher level than blacks. For example, you will find more native US born Asian Americans interrogated or detained by immigration officials on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant or carrying a fake passport then you will find for blacks.
I would argue that whites fear Asians more than they do blacks, and hence need to control them more.
To believe that any Asian American group enjoys “privilege” is tantamount to being brainwashed by white supremacist ideology (or is the term “whitewashed”?). Do not fall for it.
6. Twisting words
I would be one of those that recognizes that Kiwi does sometimes rearrange others’ words to have them mean something other than one intended. For example, I think he did it above when it mentioned me calling out Mack Lyons’ racism in connection with labelling him a black supremacist. I did not like that.
However, well before he paraphrased anything you said, you already did a splendid job of twisting your own words (eg, #1 & #4 above).
You are of course a welcome guest at this dinner table, but you were the one who seriously derailed the discussion, spurted out racist ad hominems and simply made up stuff. The proper way to respond is merely to acknowledge this and go on. Kiwi did make some pointed allegations and some borderline ad hominems to support his arguments. Not sure if it falls within acceptable dinner table decorum, but that is debatable. You went several steps beyond that.
Hope that we can get beyond this and look forward to some civil dinner table discourse. So what were you saying about Bernie Sanders?
LikeLike
So, jefe, did Abagond die and leave you as the genial host, or are you usurping his role? Your claim that I used the perpetual foreigner trope against Kiwi, on another thread, is as ignorant as your claim that China’s smoking policy was some kind of Machiavellian commie plot to kill their own people! How stupid!
I asked that precious little hypocrite to give me his opinion on blatantly racist comments by some people you two share racial affinities to. You dishonestly conflated that request into denial of his American nationality.
You sir are no stranger to twisting people’s words to fit your agenda.
The difference between Black Empowerment and Black Supremacism is simple, the former restricts black people to what’s palatable to others and the later to whatever is necessary for the well being of blacks.
My favorite example of the later was Dessalines putting the remaining White French, whose loyalties were deemed unconvincing, to the sword. I don’t have a problem with such severity because the victims in that instance did the same to blacks on Guadeloupe and planned the same fate for the blacks on St-Domingue. They were beaten to the punch. The massacre of blacks on Guadeloupe was accomplished with the help of black empowerment type blacks.
The absurd economic policies of South Africa, that maintains mass black suffering over two decades after “liberation” is another horror of black empowerment.
Had Dessalines’s black supremacist land program to give the land to the Black cultivators succeeded, Haiti wouldn’t be the poorest land of the Americas.
LikeLike
The difference between Black Empowerment and Black Supremacism is simple, the former restricts black people to what’s palatable to others and the later to whatever is necessary for the well being of blacks.”
I agree with Gro Jo statement. Black Empowerment is palatable within the confines of white supremacy because it allows white people to determine its boundaries.
King said “I think the idea that Black Supremacy does not effect other people because Blacks are not the majority power in society is a false one. It fails to understand that Blacks can effect people within their ‘bubbles of influence’ where they ARE majority or DO have power over people of other races.+
I would agree with that.
“For example, a Black construction supervisor working for Turner Construction who refuses to hire Mexicans in his area because he doesn’t like the fact that they speak Spanish to one another. He feels that since he cannot understand Spanish that they may be talking about him behind his back. Therefore he simply doesn’t hire them on his Crews.”
I believe the owner has a right to choose whatever workers he wishes regardless of motive. I would be against any law mandating that he diversify his work force.
I worked on a job site in L.A. where the entire construction company was Black owned and all laborers their were Black. I didn’t have a conversation with the owner about why that was but I suspect it was more about employing Blacks who had skills and needed jobs then it did about discriminating against white of Hispanic workers. I wouldn’t call him a racist rather he is providing opportunities for his people.
“Or a Black public school teacher who feels it is her duty to take “know it all” Asian students and knock them down a peg. Refusing to call on them often and grading them more strenuously because “they all cheat” and “all they care about is getting grades.”
That’s speculative. Can Blacks be and act racist? Of course. In California Asian American test scores for college entrance are considerably higher then whites and non whites. That’s racist. Its done for “diversity” but the truth is Americans don’t want Asians holding key positions within both the public and private sector. That would threaten white supremacy.
“The truth is that believing that the human race is divided into ‘racial’ groupings that are superior or inferior to one another is ALWAYS a problem, no matter who is doing it, or who is in control of the larger society.”
I agree with that statement as well. What I’m getting at is that Black Supremacy is a reaction to white supremacy. I see it as a weapon useful in attacking hierarchy. Black Supremacy doesn’t have the power to imprison, rape, lynch, bomb white churches or have an economic monopoly on the economy.
We live in a racial hierarchy dominated by white centrism. We need groups that challenged that monopoly to bring about a more horizontal society. I don’t see them as a threat. I don’t agree with the tenants of some of their beliefs and but they they are entitled to believe whatever they want provided they don’t coerce others into consent.
We have plenty of people who are immigrating to this country. I don’t want them to “assimilate” into white supremacy. I want them to maintain their culture, religion, family ties and language. I want them to act like cancer within America, slowly replacing white supremacy which weakens the current racial hierarchy.
BLM just recently held a ‘Blacks only” event in Los Angels. Are they about “Black Power” or “Black Supremacy” ? Or maybe they are smart enough to realize that white people will always seek to control a movement, so the safest play is to keep them out.
(https://www.facebook.com/events/1708458972701391/)
LikeLike
” on Mon 15 Feb 2016 at 21:20:57
Kiwi
@ gro jo
I see. So if Black supremacy were instated wherever possible, every Black country would become as free and prosperous as Haiti. Sounds like a plan. Good luck with that.”
This is why I can’t hate you, you are too much of a clown. I maintain that Haiti would be a hell of a lot more prosperous if its leaders had refused to pay France extortion money for ‘recognition’ in 1825. Prior to that date, Haiti was wealthy enough for King Henri Christophe to finish building the biggest fort in the Americas, several palaces, start universal education and have enough money left over to contemplate purchasing what is now the Dominican Republic from Spain. Black supremacy worked pretty well while it lasted. If Haiti isn’t to your liking try the history of Janjira sultanate, run by blacks and their descendants from 1489–1948. I know that such facts don’t accord with your worship of white men, to the point of preventing you from finding a mate from the 70+% of Asian females available to you, but facts are facts.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
“It would also confirm to Whites that people of color are merely self-interested and would be just as bad, if not worse than they are if they came out on top. Whites would feel vindicated in holding down people of color.”
That’s actually a good point. I think when Whites hear a person of color espouse a supremacist ideology, that is how they feel.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi.
I was referring to white Americans.
LikeLike
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/haiti
LikeLike
“later in my comments above should have been “latter”
LikeLike
@ gro jo
Are you sure about this?
I always thought that the main hindrance of Haiti’s development back in the 19th century was the fact that this first Black governed Republic in the Americas was surrounded by a hostile White world which did everything to make sure that the experiment would fail.
I would like to learn more of Haiti’s history, in especial back in those times.
Maybe you can give me some directions.
Regarding the today’s status of Haitian’s economy and society, I think the performance of recent governments is the probable cause of its underdevelopment. Whatever happened two centuries ago cannot be the culprit. The hostility of part of the outside world against the country certainly is, after World War Two, less effectual because the world of today has many centers of influence. Besides that, modern societies are shaped and reshaped in short periods of time beyond recognition.Think about South Korea as an example.
It’s a pity that we are discussing such an important topic as the development of pos-Apartheid Republic of South Africa in the context of an attempt at disambiguation of the expressions Black supremacism and Black empowerment.
This country is very important for Black people worldwide because is one of the major global(?) economies (member of the BRICS group and the G20) where the population is mainly Black, despite the fact that nowadays that economy is owned mainly by White families.
As a citizen of one of countries that integrates, with the Republic of South Africa, the SADCC group, I’m following with attention the economic and social development of that country.
Oft I saw two types of critics of South African governments post-Apartheid:
1. A rightist or whitish one says that after the demise of the last White led government two decades ago, the South African economy and society entered a downward spiral (This is a proof in their minds, if not exactly of Black incompetence for governance, at least of ANC incompetence). Fact of the matter is that the numbers tell us a different story. The economy of that country was/is expanding most of the time in that period, and more than in the last decade of the Apartheid regime! See, for example:
(http://www.idc.co.za/reports/IDC%20R&I%20publication%20-%20Overview%20of%20key%20trends%20in%20SA%20economy%20since%201994.pdf)
or
(www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/gdp)
Perceptions sometimes are not reality!
2. A leftist or blackish critic contends that the expected reforms which would allow increased prosperity of the mass of Black citizens of that country failed to happen and, they are, in fact, so poor as when the Apartheid was the rule of the country.
I do not agree with that.
Maybe the expectations were too high and failed to be matched. But the Black population has a better life today than two decades ago
I’ll not go directly to the statistics but you have today:
* more Blacks in South African Universities;
* more Blacks entrepreneurs;
* more Blacks as elected officials at all levels of governance
* etc
All this translated in more affluence.
But a large underclass remained on the bottom and the social cleavages are high and visible, therefore some resentment in people who didn’t yet made it.
Despite all the increasing affluence of the Black population as a whole, I would agree that much more has to be done. But I would say that in the Southern African region (SADCC) many people think a little bit conservative when it comes to rapid radical changes of the social and economic fabric of societies. The recent example of the Mugabe government which seized some White owned farms with the subsequent shrinking of the agriculture output, showed everybody that social and economic changes must be dealt with intelligence and some patience too. Wanting alone is not enough!
I think that South Africa will be able to expand its riches to more of its citizens as its economy expands. So, the solution is to put much of the effort in the grow of the economy.
But this does not exclude well-thought measures to re-address the injustices of the past too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“All I know now is that under a Black supremacy, only White and Black Americans would be regarded as American. Asians and all other races would be excluded.”
Thank you Kiwi for honestly stating your anxiety. Don’t you feel better now that you’ve told the truth? To you, whites are the glue that holds this society together, the rest are just competing for white affection.
I don’t share your belief in whites, I see them as another group competing for the good stuff of the world along with everybody else.
The Chinese are giving them a hard time because they have revealed themselves to be formidable competitors. Despite China’s “Peaceful Rise” policy, the USA is doing all it can to block their success.
Note that China is not advocating an openly chauvinist policy but that’s exactly how it’s interpreted. Nothing surprising about that fact, that’s the way it is in the real world. Everybody looks after number one.
Competition can be constructive as well as destructive, betting that it will all turn out for the best is Panglossian nonsense in my view.
LikeLike
munubantu wrote: “The recent example of the Mugabe government which seized some White owned farms with the subsequent shrinking of the agriculture output, showed everybody that social and economic changes must be dealt with intelligence and some patience too. Wanting alone is not enough!
I think that South Africa will be able to expand its riches to more of its citizens as its economy expands. So, the solution is to put much of the effort in the grow of the economy.”
The problem I see with your argument is its technocratic bent, economies can expand and leave the majority in poverty as is the case for SA. The colony of St-Domingue generated vast wealth for France at the cost of killing a good number of the Africans who created the wealth.
I disagree with you on your assessment of Mugabe’s land reform, a number of Africans, not just his cronies, as the media like to claim, benefited from it. I don’t doubt that corruption played a part in the process, but it had to be done. It’s up to the people of Zimbabwe to correct the defects of their land reform.
I also agree with Mugabe’s policy of requiring a majority stake in enterprises that use and deplete that nation’s natural resources. The argument that ownership of capital and techniques entitles the investor to keep 100% of the profits doesn’t impress me. As for the claim that land reform should be done intelligently, I would ask you to expand on that thought if it isn’t a dodge to avoid rectifying the problem of racist dispossession of the black majority.
“I always thought that the main hindrance of Haiti’s development back in the 19th century was the fact that this first Black governed Republic in the Americas was surrounded by a hostile White world which did everything to make sure that the experiment would fail.”
in 1811 Haiti did over a million pounds worth of business with Britain. A Brit named Thomas Goodall was named admiral of King Henri’s navy and paid a king’s ransom for his services. Kiwi’s ignorant and stupid comments about black supremacy are at odds with the facts. (https://yooniqimages.com/images/detail/102088662/Creative/thomas-goodall-naval-commander-admiral-in-service-in-haiti) The hostility was real but not all encompassing. The real cause was accepting to pay money they didn’t have for something of dubious value. The payments didn’t end until the 1940s! That money should have been put to better use.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Kiwi
Her endorsement of Hillary likely have nothing to do with middle easterners, so much as her concern for her people. I don’t see anything she said as a blatant disregard. Just a matter of what she sees as a priority. Which is an attitude no different from anyone else out there voting. Everyone is self-serving so to treat her that way was simply uncalled for. I am not voting at all, but I don’t wish to see people get all in my space about it. I don’t want to hear anything from people about how I am the reason the country is falling apart, as if my vote is the end to all.
LikeLike
@Jefe
“Yet you suddenly took sides.”—Originally he did not take sides, but when he did it was because how kiwi stated what he did, Which can be taken as offensive. He then apologized because he took two words to mean the same thing when they did not.
Come out on top is a idom that I don’t think would be in the oxford dictionary, but here is a link to it’s meaning.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/come+out+on+top
LikeLike
“Kiwi
@ gro jo
I don’t share your belief in whites, I see them as another group competing for the good stuff of the world along with everybody else.
Can you read? That’s what I said. Blacks like you would do the same thing. Your problem is that you hypocritically criticize Whites for doing what you want to do. It seems like you’re the one who worships Whites.”
Oh well, your spell of honesty didn’t last very long did it? You are back to denying your desire to, how did you put it? Oh yeah, “…cozy up to White people, all other races be damned.” My, no wonder you react with such hostility to black men with power, you fear they might deprive of that little Becky your heart pines for. Relax, there are lots of them. You know, you should fulfill that wish by marrying, or whatever, some white girl. Stop feeling ashamed of your desires and go for it. You’ll be happier for it. Drop your defender of Asian womanhood bit, they don’t want or believe it, and you don’t either. Learn to mind your business.
LikeLike
Kiwi
I don’t disagree that all are complicit in disregard for middle easterners, but is not the vise versa also true?
The thing is people are starting to dive into their impulses. I expect there are those of us who still hold on to not being self-serving, but if we look around most are. Whites voting for trump because they love the self-serving idea of making America white again. They whine because they want it good for them and bad for others. Blacks who have been getting the short end of the stick, while listening to other groups shame them now want to look out for themselves and be as self-serving as others. Asians (based purely on what I have seen) are just now starting to speak up for themselves and make demands…..the list goes on…
LikeLike
@sharina
, Sorry, but no.
Asians have been fighting for their civil rights for at least 150 years, even before they were allowed to be come citizens. They were vigourous users of the court system (even when they could not vote) well before blacks, who were citizens first.
It just seems that there has been a lull in the consciousness in the past 15-20 years, but that might change again.
LikeLike
jefe
In the past that might have been true, but there has been a major gap in years since then and as of recent years Asians have said little to nothing in regards to speaking out.
I have seen other Asians call Asians out on their say nothing atritude and it is because they don’t usually say anything.
LikeLike
Sharina,
It is because the Model Minority Stereotype, which emerged during the Reagan era ended up working as intended – trying to shut Asians up and pointing to Asians in front of blacks to shut them up too.Divide and conquer was indeed rather effective.
But, hopefully soon, that false model might break down.
LikeLike
jefe
I know the reason for it, but it does not change that it is how it is and that is why I said what I said.
LikeLike
@Kiwi said
“That is precisely the problem. You used “American” and “White American” as if they were interchangeable, at the expense of Asian Americans. All I know now is that under a Black supremacy, only White and Black Americans would be regarded as American. Asians and all other races would be excluded.
I doubt you personally are doing this, but I get the impression that every time someone advocates a supremacist ideology for a minority group, they really just wish for that one group to be allowed to cozy up to White people, all other races be damned.”
I spit out my coffee reading this. I think this could be accurate.
LikeLike
Harry Belafonte endorses Bernie Sanders:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NunNrElCRDs)
LikeLike
Hi Sharina,
But it just so happened that a commenter said that a consultation with the Oxford English dictionary would resolve the matter. I consulted the Oxford English dictionary and it did not support, but actually conflicted with the assertion.
Thanks for sharing this link. I also looked for many links, including this one, which all said that coming out on top meant being the winner, a singular position above all others. (in contrast to being a winner, which refers to a person or thing that excels, not necessarily singularly on top).
Anyhow, I certainly do not want to beleaguer the point and get bogged down with definitions. People may use words and mean something else that the words alone suggest. We should not reduce people to soundbites, so if there is any misunderstanding, we can clarify them without accusing people of changing what they meant.
Moreover, we are also having problems in using terms like “black empowerment” v. “black supremacy”. Maybe a post could help clear that up along with other terms that might mean something slightly different (eg, “black self-determination”). We don’t want to derail discussion into choice of terminology, unless of course, the terminology itself is the theme of the discussion.
LikeLike
@abagond
Since you seem to be keeping track on who is endorsing whom, maybe you could take all this information and put it into a single post with links to their endorsements. New endorsements or revised ones could be added so that we can find all of these in one place. It would save us a lot of trouble to scan though a dozen different threads to find this information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/vermont-s-black-leaders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html?via=newsletter&source=politics
Sound familiar?
LikeLike
@Jefe
I will write out a reply later.
LikeLike
Jefe
What he said was consulting the oxford dictionary would ALSO explain the meaning. Not that it was the only source and not that it could not be found anywhere else. Now if we look at the oxford definition it really is not that far off from what he said to being with. If you succeed you are winning or triumphing.
So you are arguing over details so minor in meaning it is borderline ridiculous.
“Anyhow, I certainly do not want to beleaguer the point and get bogged down with definitions”—You gave him an essay about it!!! IF you were going to conclude that he can use his own meaning and was fine with that then your input was not even needed. I don’t understand how you can just go ham on a person and then posts later decided it is no big deal because you want to make it no big deal.
“we are also having problems in using terms like “black empowerment” v. “black supremacy”—WE are not have an issue with term usage. One person had an issue with it and made it clear of their mistake. I don’t think a post is needed for that. He corrected himself. You just decided to be rude for no real reason after the fact.
“We don’t want to derail discussion into choice of terminology, unless of course, the terminology itself is the theme of the discussion.”—If abagond decides that it is a derail he will simply say so, but you accuse someone of something. Get downright rude about it and then want to claim further discussion as a derail. I think people and him have every right to respond.
LikeLike
Years ago, blacks were considered “model minorities”. I hate that term. So condescending.
LikeLike
@ gro jo
I hesitated before writing this reply to your previous comment above, because I try, as far as possible, to not derail threads with outside topics. Anyway, let’s go.
The way the Mugabe’s government intervened in the agricultural activity in Zimbabwe created not only a significant reduction in its output and contribution to the GDP but also is one of the main reasons of a mass exodus of Zimbabweans to other countries, like South Africa and Botswana.
A more rational approach could have taken the society closer to the goals of more Black participation in the added value coming from agrarian activity avoiding some of the severe side-effects we have witnessed.
Let’s take a closer look.
Agrarian activity in Zimbabwean case was/is essentially a form of capitalist activity. As such we have the owners of means of production (farmers) on one side, and the workers on the other side. A third element is the rest of society, and here I think, for example, in the urban population.
The activity created wealth and, in the typical capitalist setting, the capitalists (farmers) try to extract as much as possible of it in the form of profits for themselves. Some of the mechanisms they use include paying low wages to their collaborators and selling their produces with high prices.
What if the government had intervened to help the rural workers to get more decent minimum wages (This is why we have laws: to regulate social behavior)? This would have impacted immediately thousands of rural families which would have seen their livelihoods improve significantly and alleviate the burden of poverty over them.
What if government had defined higher taxes for agriculture? This would have put in the hand of the government more resources to intervene in other social areas that affected directly large parts of the Black population.
We can go on.. The point is that a Black government could have proceeded in order to extract a larger chunk of the wealth created in agriculture and other White controlled sectors to direct this wealth in benefit of the Black population.
In this way some historical imbalances could have been gradually reduced without resorting to physical confrontation, invasion of propriety with some people even getting killed in the process.
Probably some White farmers would have abandoned that activity feeling that their margin of profit would have been reduced in a way that the whole thing would have not been, for them, as interesting as before. Then the government could have bought their land and sell it to interested Blacks in a modicum price. And the government could proceed to treat Black farmers with some kind of affirmative action to allow them to grow faster, closing the gaps with the their wealthier White colleagues (For example, preferential or favorable access to bank credits).
The point is that if Blacks have the political power in their hands and want to use that power to address historic injustices this can be done in a controlled and civilized way. You don’t need to resort to political bravados to achieve that.
I agree with you that the government of a developing country must try to have a participation as high as possible in high productive activities like extraction, processing and selling of minerals. This way the wealth generated there can help the majority of its citizens and not be confined to a minority. But there many problems that can get in the way of that goal, like corruption, which, again, benefits only the ones who are closer to the power and not the majority.
The examples and models abound and we don’t need to go far away to find a workable one and try to apply it. Nigeria expanded its economy – which is now the larger in Africa, having surpassed recently South Africa – using oil and gas. Those are exploited mainly by foreign companies, but the Nigerian state has, by law, the majority of actions in the exploitation of the larger deposits (At least 51%). Mozambique – where I live – is on the verge of exploiting large gas deposits, discovered recently on its coast, and one of the daily conversation of our urban intelligentsia is how to guarantee that the profits derived from the exploitation of that gas will benefit the majority of our population: some wrestling with the foreign private companies involved is unavoidable and the required controls to minimize corrupt practices by our own government officials must be thought out in advance.
A small note: you insinuate that my ideas about the Zimbabwean political and social process come from the media. This is true only partially. Certainly I read newspapers and watch television, and I must say that in some countries like South Africa and its neighbors the media remains in large part a White business. Therefore Whites have some say on the opinions circulated by those outlets.
But my ideas have a much larger basis.
First, I’m a native of the region and I live there. I have family members – in the sense of extended family – who reside in other countries in the region (SADC region) and in all those years I’ve made many friends in all these countries. We meet in regional meetings discussing issues like transboundary enviromental or water issues, etc. And we become friends, discussing also our lives, making comparisons, seeing similarities, differences, etc. We know what happens not only in our own countries but also what happens on the other side of our shared international borders.
P.S.:
I hope that Abagond does’t get mad with the above ramble.
I think the topics I raised in this comment have some relevance to the Bernie Sanders candidacy because its all about how to properly manage society, to reduce imbalances in societies, to fight injustices, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bernie Sanders and the Palestian Question.
I.
Would Mr.Sanders, should he be elected as the President of the United States of America, tergiversate on the Palestinian crisis, in a similar way to that of President Obama?
Reading about Mr. Sanders’ early stance against the Israeli brutal regime, imbues one with (cautious) optimism.
Whilst endorsing Reverend Jessie Jackson’s candidacy, he (Sanders)had lambasted Israel’s brutality against Palestinian protesters.This was, if one remembers, amongst the manifold acts of aggression, when Yitzhak Rabinhad ordered Israeli soldiers to systematically and methodically break all the limbs of Palestian youths.
However, and fast forward to the 21st century, his attitude took a different tone, when he threatened to call the police on members of the audience when he was challenged on his defence of Israel’s war crimes in the Gaza strip.
In 2015, Palestinian solidarity activists were thrown out of a Sanders’campaign rally in Boston and threatened with arrest for a sign readinf: “Will ya #FeelTheBern 4 Palestine?”.
LikeLike
II.
As I had found out at a UN conference against Racismin Durban and spent some time in Israel, there is not blanket unanimity amongs Jewish people on the Palestinian /Israeli question.
Although, Mr Sanders’ family was murdered by the Nazis , and he had spent time on a kibbutz, (I am wondering here if Kibbutzism was where his socialism originated) that did not stop him from criticising Israeli violence against the dispossessed Palestinians.
Whilst running for Congress, he maintained his position of “”The policy that Israeli’ s shoot people is unacceptable. It is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel”, and “We are not going to be the arms merchant for Middle East nations. “.
The longer , it seems that Mr. Sanders stayed in Congress, the more he back pedalled and the less he has spoken out against Israeli human rights abuses of Palestinians.
A reading of Mr. Sander’ record on the Palestinian question is that he has abandoned his ideological commitment for political expediency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
III.
In 2015, he has fully endorsed US aid to Israel.
The resolution calling for the UN to rescind the Goldstine report in 2011, was passed with unanimous consent . That means Senator Sanders did not debate, or block it. The Golstone Report found evidence of war crimes during Israel’s 2008-2009 bombing of Gaza.
In an interview with the Rolling Stones, he decried Israel’s war on Gaza, while still justifying Israel’s actions. It seems he is trying to straddle, on the one side, the hawkish policies of Washington of whic Mrs. Clinton is a devotee of, with that of his more progressive base.
In 2015, he said the United States will support the security of Israel , help fight terrorist attacks that country and maintain its independence.
There are many more examples of backpedalling and not speaking out against Israel as he had in the past.
Source: electronicintifada.org
LikeLike
IV.
Whether Mrs. Clinton or Mr.Sanders, the United States of America’s criminal imperialism will not end. The tragic suffering of the Palestinians will continue unabated and billions of US taxes will be given as aid to a country that fits into the Kruger National Park. Taxes that could be set aside for reparations for African Americans.
Perhaps, if Senator Sanders goes against the grain of the very strong Israeli lobby’s vice grip on American Congress, that would be the death knell of him.
LikeLike
Ta-Nehisi Coates, is voting for Sanders in spite of his dismissal of reparations as divisive, highlights that he ( Mr Sanders) does not get the very seriousness of racial justice redress towards African Americans.
LikeLike
It seems like the Black plebiscite’s choice of candidates is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.
It seems that neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Sanders, are interested in Black people, but they are interested in the Black vote.
Apology for typos. Typed on a small phone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Abagond
I apologize for the derailment of this thread.
@Sharinair
I am a she ☺.
LikeLike
@Jefe
That was an inordinately, very, very long dissertation to my two questions to Kiwi.
This is the second time I am the unfortunate recipient of your very, very long posts.
You should have dispensed with the unnecessary unctuous patronizing attitude, mixed with accusations of ad hominems and red herrings in your verbose post. If you were that concerned about derailment, you could have been more succinct or suggest that it be taken to the more appropriate thread.
As person who views regions of Africa, as “some uncivilized African country”
, your answer upon further questioning revealed your understanding of Africa. You had failed to see how wrong it to describe the culture it as ‘uncivilized’ something ‘sav ge’,
less ‘civilized’.
Yet you can lecture people about racist tropes.
You had written out a 7 page response!
Now I am saddled with a 13 page essay . The reader can draw their own conclusions. Not one racist on this blog had ever been subjected to this kind of rudeness (by you).
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Since you are hell-bent in magnifying and distorting the usage of the expression : to ‘come out on top’ , may I suggest the Roget’s Thesaurus? In the 150th edition, it has 83 entries for the word, come.
‘come out on top’
succeed 727 verb
Vb succeed in, effect, accomplish, achieve, etc.
Since you want to nit pick, open any dictionary and look up ‘top’ and compare.
I had committed a faux pas and promptly admitted it.
However, by trying to embarrass me, you had incorrectly attributed Black Empowerment to me. Black Economic Empowerment is a South African initiative to redress the inequality of apartheid. There was no reason for using it in this context.
I had used Black Power, which is the slogan of Black Consciousness philosophy of Steve Biko and Malcolm X , their teachings of which I am an adherent of. Black Consciousness is about self-determination for Africans and African s in diaspora.
The crux of calling a commenter a racist rested upon a different understanding of words, which I had given Kiwi the benefit of the doubt. Now you have displayed a wilful obtuseness, rather than wanting to clear the mischaracterization of some-one falsely accused of racism.
LikeLike
Continued
@ Jefe
The raison d’entire (my derailment) why I had questioned Kiwi, I wanted to know who
the finger-pointer was? Who is he to call Black people racist pieces of sh t whilst exercising their freedom to vote? Including the President of the United States of America?
My question to Kiwi was specific. I did not call him an Asian American which would include Bangladeshis, Laotians, Indians, Palestinians, etc.
You had attributed me calling him Asian American when I did not. You had then conflated Asians , other People of Colour and Native American tragedy to buttress your argument.
(I will take this time to condemn all the atrocities and human rights abuses committed by white supremacy over the world’s citizens.)
If I had not used ellipsis, part of my sentence, would have read: As a Chinese American, with somewhat more privilege than African Americans, whether you deny it or not….
I have come to understand that this specific word (privileged) is highly contested amongst (on-line) Asian Americans).
Soya Jung writes on www. racefiles.com “On Asian American Privilege”. That thread brought no unanimity of opinion. She opines that indeed, Asian privilege exists.
Your words to me: “To believe that any Asian American group enjoys privilege is tantamount to being brainwashed by white supremacist ideology ”
Would you challenge Ms. Jung with those words?
I did not say ‘privileged’ which has a very different shade of meaning to ‘somewhat more privileged than African Americans.’
LikeLike
^^^Raison d’ entre with ^
@Jefe
I was referring to that psychic torture that Africans and Africans in diaspora and First Peoples endure as a result of genocide and slavery. The layers of dehumanization, degradation that is specific to these groups , the African placed outside of humanity.
The memorialization and acknowledgment of Black suffering should be put at its rightful place in the shameful legacy of white supremacy.
To personalize why I would make such an assertion of ‘somewhat privileged ‘-
I have the blood of three continents in my veins -slave ancestors from South East Asia? Original -San , Zulu ,West African – slave ancestors.
I was classified as Coloured and so were Chinese who were later re-classified as white. We were also created as a bulwark against ‘the Bantu ‘protecting the whites. A sort of a middleman. I had asked the question many times why ‘Black’ people were not genocided or exterminated. And there is very sinister complex rationale within white supremacy.
I did not, although my ancestors were genocided and are dehumanunized, experience the very worst level of debasement (neither did South African Chinese) It was ‘ Black Africans’ and the San. Not Indians, not Chinese, not Coloured. (Please refer to the South African use of the word).
It is that psychic torture that I do/did not experience from complete dehumanization and placed at the bottom of humanity and consciously and critically understand how much ‘luckier’ I am to African African/ Americans.
I would not dream of (casually) calling a Black person racist.
LikeLike
I am wondering why the juxtaposition of Black Supremacy with Chinese American with ‘somewhat more privilege’ should elicit such a strong reaction.
Perhaps, the unspoken internalization of ‘swart gevaar’ , Afrikaans for Black threat.
LikeLike
munubantu, Thank you for taking the time to reply. Our conversation ties to the Sanders campaign because it touches on the topic of what a politician owes his constituency.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Zimbabwe land reform because you seem to have forgotten that it occurred 20 years after Mugabe took power. From 1980 to 2000, ZANU-PF and the white farmers cohabited under the agreement that gave power to blacks. White farmers had ample time to come to terms and cough up the land they stole at gunpoint, instead, they convinced themselves that they could overthrow the government via the ballot box with Morgan Tsvangirai.
ZANU-PF, showed them why they were the party in power by unleashing the pent up energy that unequal land distribution due to racist laws passed in the 1930s created. The rest is history. White farmers ended up dispossessed. The 60,000 tobacco farmers who took over from the 6,000 white tobacco farmers aren’t crying when the price for that crop is high.
LikeLiked by 1 person
taotesan
I was not aware. I apologize.
LikeLike
@Sharinair
No need for apology.
LikeLike
@ taotesan
I’m not recalling anything you’ve ever posted here that I have disagreed with.
Please keep up your insightful excellence! Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Fan….
So much appreciated!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ gro jo
Really? And how could I have forgotten anything about recent Zimbabwe’s history if I live nearby as I said before?
I’m not sure if I understand your point here. Are you saying that those contemporary White farmers had stolen the land of Black Zimbabweans directly or, have only inherited stolen land from their ancestors?
Anyway, it was up to the government of Zimbabwe to have solved the land question, not the farmers. The farmers are simple citizens who, in normal circumstances, are supposed to follow the law of the land, or putting it better, be acquainted with the progress and changes in laws or overall legislation and then respect what the law prescribes. It was not up to them to take the initiative.
I’m not aware that before the year 2000, the Zimbabwe’s government did anything to change the overall pattern of land ownership in that country. Please, do not shift the blame!
This does not mean that said farmers were some kind of saints waiting happily to give their propriety to the government. No. This mean that any initiative should have been taken by the government, not the other part. By the way a similar situation exists today in South Africa. Also there, if anything is to happen regarding changes in the distribution of land, is up to South African government to define what it is and how things should unfold.
I noticed that you are introducing many new themes in our conversation. In this blog people call it something… wait a moment: moving goal posts.
Anyway…
What farmers thought about the concurrent parties is not relevant to the final result of said elections. Maybe you don’t know but I must inform you a few things:
* the result of any election at that time expressed only the will of the Zimbabwean people, nothing else; neither if the farmers were for party “A” or “B” is not that important; they are a minority after all and their will would not weight that much in general elections;
* there is not such thing as overthrowing a government via the ballot box; this a contradiction in itself; either the government lost democratically, this is, in the ballot box, or it is really overthrown, that is, replaced by a coup d’etat; you can’t have both simultaneously;
* please respect the Zimbabwean people, and the African people in general; African peoples are mature enough to be able to decide what is better for them; I or you can be unhappy with a specific choice made by an electorate, but, if we are real democrats, then we must accept that choice, whatever it is.
This conversation has lost significance for me. You keep telling me that many Black farmers arose from the seizing of land in the hand of White farmers. It seems that it is the only significant thing for you. Not that this is irrelevant for me, but I would had preferred a smoother course of action. The exodus of thousands of Zimbabweans, fleeing the aggravated living conditions in their motherland is something that I cannot have the luxury to ignore. Maybe because I’ve seen some of them, their misery. We are neighbor, after all. It’s the human dimension of a misguided process of land reform. This is my opinion and I stick to it.
I’m done, at this point. I think that we must, respectfully, agree to disagree!
P.S.:
I must add that independently of the way the land reform was carried out in Zimbabwe and some other places in Africa, I believe in the fundamental resilience of African peoples and societies, and in this case it means, that I believe that, in a not so distant future the wounds of this process will heal, and some if not even many of the Black farmers who received land through this process will rise to become successful entrepreneurs. It’s not in dispute their ability to rise once the conditions are in their hands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I must add that independently of the way the land reform was carried out in Zimbabwe and some other places in Africa, I believe in the fundamental resilience of African peoples and societies, and in this case it means, that I believe that, in a not so distant future the wounds of this process will heal, and some if not even many of the Black farmers who received land through this process will rise to become successful entrepreneurs. It’s not in dispute their ability to rise once the conditions are in their hands.”
Glad to see that we agree on what the outcome should be.
You accuse me of moving the goal post, welcome to the club, several of my interlocutors have accused me of that.
I make the same reply to you that I made to them. I’m free to argue my point as I see fit. You wished to reduce the debate to some technocratic, legalistic exercise, leaving out the concessions that were made when the whites found their position untenable, what with the influx of arms coming from the collapse of the former Portuguese colonies.
I find it telling that you saw fit to leave out any mention of the role Britain played such as when Claire Short did the following: “In a complete about turn, Minister Short informed the Zimbabwean government that the election of a Labour government “without links to former colonial interests” meant Britain no longer had any “special responsibility to meet the cost of land purchases”. By the stroke of a pen, the Minister reneged on the British government’s commitment to address land imbalances they created a century ago.”
After robbing the Africans for nearly a century Britain washed its hands of the results.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bernie Sanders’s ad “America”:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug)
Notice how White it is.
LikeLike
@ munubantu and gro jo
You both have unpacked salient and insightful commentary in a robust conversation about the economics of Southern Africa. I enjoyed your analyses, whilst at times, both agreeing and disagreeing with both sides of your arguments. I am highly appreciative of both your input. Thank you.
LikeLike
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUA6Cvzx4uY)
The Day Trump Is Nominated Is The Day The Republican Party Ends
Mike Malloy
LikeLike
[…] Bernie Sanders […]
LikeLike
Bernie made a mistake on race during the debate. It could be called racist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-ghetto_us_56dce712e4b03a405679062b?dxiuow29
LikeLike
Well Sanders needs to understand black doesn’t equal ghetto.
LikeLike
Mary said,
“Well Sanders needs to understand black doesn’t equal ghetto.
Along with the rest of America.
LikeLike
@Michael Jon Barker: I know you know this but that’s the lie many white Americans and other people who immigrate to this country believe. They believe in the lie that main stream media portrays.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sanders wins Michigan!
So far there has been more or less a North/South split between the states that Clinton and Sanders have won, as if they are strong regional candidates, not national ones.
LikeLike
@abagond
I read that part of the reason he won in Michigan was due him winning the Arab-American vote by a considerable margin. 60% of Dearborn’s Arab-Americans voted for Sanders. In some precidents he won the Arab-American vote 2-1 against Hillary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My name is Alfred e. Neumann and I approve this message:
http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2016/03/02/new-campaign-slogans-wed-like-to-see
LikeLike
http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2016/02/11/the-socialist-network-bernie-sanders-new-movie
LikeLike
Feel the Bern, hahahaha!!!
LikeLike
Bernard Sanders has the very same birthday (exact day, month, and year) as Myrtle Jean (Bennett) Stagner, a Moffat County, Colorado resident! She died very expectedly.
LikeLike
Jill Stein recently offered Bernie Sanders the V.P. nomination for the Green Party which also reflects much of Bernie’s message.
I hope he has the integrity to accept it. I think this political cycle offers an opportunity to break the two party monopoly which it holds over American politics.
If Bernie attempts to persuade his followers to back Hillary then it’s just going to be business as usual. He can try to get some progressive planks added to the Democratic party but I am skeptical that any of his proposals would actually be acted upon with Hillary in the white house. Promises will be made but that will be end of it.
The Libertarian party is in disarray right now with a fight between social justice libertarians and Gary Johnson who resembles a Trump version of libertarianism. I watched the Libertarian presidential debate in Philadelphia where the Libertarian Party to their credit had an American Muslim as one of the moderates of the debate. He called out Johnsons Islamophobia.
I would like to see four to five different political parties compete within our Democracy. The Republicans could represent conservatiim and the Christian right, the Democrats would be the socially liberal Wall Street centrists, the Greens the progressives with libertarians being the socially liberal market anarchists.
I don’t think in today’s America tgat two parties can adequately represent all Americans.
LikeLike
*moderators
LikeLike
@ michaeljonbarker
Seems like quite the risk if the likely outcome is a Trump or Cruz precidency.
I don’t get the constant complainling about the two-party system by Americans. It is the natural outcome of the American electoral system. History indicates that the emergence of a third party is more a sign of ideological crisis that then is settled by a realignment. A three-party system seems impossible.
LikeLike
The two party system “worked” when America was mostly white, capitalist, and the parties represented the interests of white people exclusively. Both parties still protect the interests of the super rich and white people over all. Their idea of diversity is assimilation into a white centric construct where whites still maintain control over society by giving communities of color achievement awards.
Today America is far more diverse in both race and political ideologies and for Democracy to be truly valid those interest need a seat at the table free from white interference.
LikeLike
My argument is that a long-term change of the two-party system could only come from a new electoral system.
LikeLike
Yes their would have to be changes in the electoral college. But that system was created when people traveled horse and buggy and information moved slowly. We don’t need it today and as we witnessed with the Bush/Gores election it can be manipulated.
I’m not just talking about presidential canidates but people running for all poltical seats within the American political system. Different political parties holding seats in the House and Senate would make it harder for the “establishment” to control.
Different parties would have cross over issues that they could build coalitions around. It wouldn’t stagnate Democracy the way the Republicans block or “shut down” the government.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
“History indicates that the emergence of a third party is more a sign of ideological crisis that then is settled by a realignment.
History also indicates third parties have emerged as single-issue parties because the two ruling parties refused to address those single issues and have emerged with completely different policy platforms than the two major parties. I don’t see how that necessarily represents “ideological crisis.”
And does the fact that Germany and other countries have multiple parties mean they’re in perpetual ideological crisis?
“A three-party system seems impossible.”
Why is that assumed? And I’d submit that third parties are better suited in plurality systems such as in the US, because they don’t have to get a majority to win an office.
The only reason we don’t have third parties with national offices is because most American voters vote for either Republicans or Democrats. It’s as simple as that.
For example there are over 146 million registered US voters, 72 million of whom are registered Democrats and 55 million are registered Republicans. So 87% are registered to either one of those parties. Even though 43% of voters “claim” to be independents, they will overwhelmingly vote either Republican or Democrat. Even if they don’t like either candidate put forth.
The largest national third party, the Libertarians has only 250,000 to 350,000 registered voters. If all the “independents” backed a single third party, they could easily elect candidates for national offices. There is nothing in the US system that stops them from doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ resw
I meant in American history.
I disagree. The numbers you give are no coincidence. While it of course it doesn’t have to be Democrats and Republicans, a two-party sytem is virtually inescapable. The reason is in the majority voting system in Congress elections and in the one-round presidential election. While the former allows for multiple parties if they are more regional than ideological, the latter doesnt. In any three-person race where all three have a chance, the two camps that are closer together will risk loosing to the even more despised opponent.
Let’s say Cruz gets the Republican nomination. Would a serious amount of Sanders supporters risk that? I think the times when this was tried (1992, 2000) has made it less likely.
The only possible scenario for a multi-party system in the US I can see is: Regional two-party systems, with some parties nearly non-existing in some areas. And these parties then form camps for the presidential elections that agree on one candidate.
LikeLike
The number of votes the Libertarian party received in 2012 was 1.2 million.
The number of votes the Green Party got was 396,684 or ,03% of the popular vote.
The number of votes Ross Protection received was 19,741,065 or 18.9% of the vote. And those were votes voted for him when decided to not run.
Bernie Sanders is in a unique position right now to make a third party relevant. His positive ratings are the highest of any canidate that has run for office.
The Sanders supporters like him because he wants to take on Wall Street and break up the economic hegemony. Their not voting for him because of free stuff.
Similarly Trump’s supporters hate the establishment just as much which outweighs Trump’s bombastic rhetoric that some of his supporters like and others ignore. He is like their cruise missel and they don’t care what is written on it.
Trump supporters are suspicious of Sander’s socialism but they don’t dislike the man. They see him as anti establishment as well.If Sanders can convince the American people that he is not going to raise their taxes, just the Establishment taxes, he is likely to get some cross over support.
I think Trump is going to reach the needed delegates before the Cleveland convention. If he doesn’t and RNC gives it to Cruz he will run as an independent.
If we had both Sanders and Trump running as independents that would through the entire politicale system into chaos. Maybe we need that.
LikeLike
*Ross Perot
*would throw
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
“I disagree.”
You can, but those are facts. Facts are most voters vote either one party or the other. No one’s forcing them to do it.
“a two-party sytem is virtually inescapable. ‘
You also said “impossible” so I get it, that’s your opinion, but you haven’t said why or how.
“The reason is in the majority voting system in Congress elections and in the one-round presidential election.”
THat’s not a reason because it doesn’t prevent a third party from winning the Presidency or getting elected to Congress. Whoever gets more votes wins, whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Socialist, if you get more votes than the other candidates, you win. It’s as simple as that.
@michaeljonbarker
“The Sanders supporters like him because he wants to take on Wall Street and break up the economic hegemony….Similarly Trump’s supporters hate the establishment just as much which outweighs Trump’s bombastic rhetoric that some of his supporters like and others ignore”
Agree. This election is a war between the party elites and the outsiders. It has real chance to split apart either party that loses
LikeLike
Bernard Sanders has the very same birthday (exact day, month, and year) as Myrtle Jeanette (Bennett) Stagner, a Moffat County, Colorado resident! She died very expectedly. (last entry was a typo.)
LikeLike
@ Mirkwood.
If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination what do you think about Bernie joining Jill Stein and forming a party that would be reprsent his progressive politics?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not make a personal attack on her or use any uncivil, un-Christian language – that got me slain.
Perhaps you should be uncivil, uncouth and filthy mouthed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@LOM
Thanks for the updates.
LikeLike
According to the Huffington Post, the national media retracts its claim that there was violence at the Nevada State Democratic convention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/national-media-retracts-its-claim_b_10132518.html/
I wish I could say I am surprised.
One “lowlight” of the article by Seth Abramson:
HRClinton is not the sure winner the media would have you believe she is—-today or in July.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Lord of Mirkwood
If you believed in a rigged system then you just set yourself up. Don’t be mad at them, be mad at the chumps behind them that had already made up their mind that Hillary the opportunity ho was going to have that nomination.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
So, you are perfectly comfortable with a President Trump? I am hardly a Hillary fan, but as bad as she would be, Trump would be far worse.
LikeLike
Mirkwood, wait four years and run for President!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Herneith
LoM won’t be old enough to run for president in 4 years. He’ll have to wait until Hillary finishes her second term.
LikeLike
Looks like time is running out for Uncle Bernie
LikeLike
@LoM
I saw this article and thought of you.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/sanders_moment_of_truth
All I can say is; don’t give up so easily. Sanders supporters can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat if they play their cards right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ah jesus i hope it isn’t a riot here with the dnc in philly coming soon
LikeLike
@LoM
Your grandmother is on the money. I’ve been feeling like that for over a decade. I refused to vote for Obama twice. I’m sick of the shenanigans on both sides of the aisle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@v8driver
It won’t be pretty!
LikeLike
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/bernie-sanders-is-putin-plant/
LikeLike
@LOM
They all have their favorite. I knew Bernie had no chance and they would back Hillary. The whole system is a bias joke to me. On one end I want to vote for change, but on the other end…what change? It is always sh** and sh**er.
LikeLike
“Are you feeling Berned?
“Fwd: Sanders criticism
From:re47@hillaryclinton.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-05-26 12:04
Subject: Fwd: Sanders criticism
This isn’t in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him.”
Corrupt theater, that is all you will ever get from the Democratic Party.”
LikeLike
I’m voting for Billy Bob Jones!
LikeLike
whee wait til they pass the national right to work bill
LikeLike
Bernie Sanders is also the most popular politician among gun manufacturers. He opposed all efforts to impose background checks, waiting periods and voted against every version of the Brady Bill.
He’s a gun loving geezer and sell out who’s simply out of touch with the liberal mainstream.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^As we can see, when you speak facts he doesn’t want to hear, his response is baseless accusation and personal attacks.
LikeLike
There’s nothing “progressive” about voting against background checks and waiting periods for would be gun buyers.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle want freebies for their constituents. And racists like scribh aka lord of mirkwood aka xpraetorius and their god Bernie Sanders love freebies too. It doesn’t make them any less racist…just racist freeloaders.
LikeLike
Give everyone a gun!
LikeLike
Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a brilliant piece attacking Bernie’s BS excuses for his lack of support for African-American reparations, something white supremacists staunchly oppose:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Problem with Bernie
0006-20140802-150922-dc-0533.jpg
https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/the-problem-with-bernie/
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLike
Copy and pasted.from Facebook.
“Bernie Sanders was holding it down. With possibly the most pressure Mitch McConnell has had on him in ages from all directions, Sanders’ filibuster was preventing the defense bill from being passed until the Senate voted on the $2000 checks passed by the House. He was preventing them from leaving for the New Years holiday and preventing the Republican Senators in Georgia from campaining.
He was winning. The Democrats could win Georgia. Struggling people would get $2000 to help.
The Democrats came up on him like Ceasar and each stuck a knife in for Mitch McConnell. Vice President Elect Kamala Harris? She joined with McConnell to kill the filibuster. Schumer led the effort. In all, 41 Democrats voted to kill it. And to be clear – that’s more votes than the Republicans could muster in their party with 40.
Welcome to the next four years. A trash party whose only grace is they’re not outright fascists, will continue to ignore and mock Americans and then lose to the more competent and terrifying Trump II in 2024. The Democrats will likely lose Georgia now. It was always an uphill battle. But apparently it wouldn’t matter anyway.”
LikeLike
The so-called progressive “squad” also seems disinclined to use its leverage to pressure Pelosi for concessions [like a vote on M4A] in exchange for their vote for her speakership. They actually have some power now because the Dems lost seats in the House in the last election so Pelosi will need all the votes she can muster. Yet – despite the fact that they ran on M4A and there’s a pandemic which took many lives, jobs, and health insurance plans – the “squad” haven’t really responded positively, so far, to the popular pressure [forcethevote.org] to up the pressure on the establishment Dems.
It has been interesting to see that unfold in the last couple weeks or so.
LikeLiked by 1 person