Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
You, and others, seem to think it is important that this group of black youth PROVE they are part of the OFFICIAL BLM Seattle movement. You wanted them to stick around after and explain themselves to the press. You are upset because they aren't who they say they are and you need proof before you believe their message is authentic. I don't remember Sloggers needing proof that certain players were members of Occupy after one of their actions. Do you see the problem with that?
And then you mistakenly call them spooks which is about as "unhelpful to the conversation" as anything I've ever seen on SLOG.
But hey, let's get into an argument on the meaning of the word "Strawman" why don't we? We are already having a discussion about how the word spook is okay in this instance because it means an FBI infiltrator, right?
Anything to take our eye off the ball and keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
I also do not think these two women need to prove anything. I don't they can. BLM has disavowed them. BLM-WA is the people who I am taking at their word here. I don't want them to stick around and explain anything. But if they were actual protesters, wouldn't they have wanted the additional publicity?
I'm not upset at all. Could you please stop projecting your dysfunctions upon me?
Your tangent by bringing up the Occupy Movement speaks volumes. Besides, I do separate the actions of the Occupy Movement from random vandals. Apparently I am not a Slogger.
I did not mistakenly call them spooks. At all. It was intentional. The term was a reference to spies for years before it was ever used to refer to African Americans. Not only that, but the term was at first a pejorative, referring to scared African Americans, who were "spooked", or frightened. Apparently your history and etymology are as good as your logic.
Your last paragraph makes so little sense it defies reply. I recommend remedial debate classes. You clearly need them.
Pretty sure that's the definition of privilege.
White liberals are bringing up anyone's identification, or bringing other movements up in an effort to get others to take their eye off the ball while accusing others of doing the same.
BTW, I'm getting Internal Server Error 500's, and a 9 minute wait between reply and actual post. I'm not sure the internet is going to permit me to post much more tonight.
"When the South has trouble with its Negroes — when the Negroes refuse to remain in their "place" — it blames "outside agitators" and "Northern interference." - James Baldwin
That's because the goal of the exercise was to create an impression of Sanders and his supporters telling black people to sit down and shut up, even though that's not in any way consistent with anything Sanders has ever said or done.
These women should be respected about as much as I respect Donald Trump, or perhaps slightly less. They are motivated by exactly the same emotion. Which is to say they can't be reasoned with because they have no capacity for reason. Like Teabaggers, they operate strictly on emotion and distrust for the "other".
White privilege is hard to spot in Seattle, but that's because the system caters to whites - well-intentioned, liberal/progressive whites who don't live the nightmare of being black in America in 2015.
This protest was effective, because here we are talking about it, 116 comments later. It was rude and clumsy, yes, but after you finish criticizing their methods, or questioning whether they were affiliated with the most legit chapter of BLM, try to imagine what it is like to live in a country, and a city, that systematically marginalizes you and your culture. It is beyond frustrating. It is infuriating.
Imagine next, on top of being a second class citizen in your own city of lip-service liberals, death after death of unarmed black men by white cops who get away with it. At some point, you have to do something. They did something. It was a mess.
The protest worked.
And for the most part not in a positive way, unless your only goal is to say "Look at me!!!!"
This crowd was a coalition building opportunity. It would have been like shooting fish in a barrel. Instead, they were just really mean to everyone. It was an awful example of persuasive speaking, and a great example of abusive speaking.
Getting the mic only to act like an ass is a terrible waste of a chance to advance a cause, and I can only imagine that they never expected to get that far, so didn't plan for what was actually going to be said. I suspect that the news they were hoping to make was "BLM Activists Shut Down, Led Away In Handcuffs at Sanders Rally!" and then found themselves stunned by the accommodation. It's hard to play the part of the victim in the theater of your allies.
Get over yourselves. There is no psy op. These women have been marching and taking action in the BLM movement for the last year.
Maybe you'd know that if you were taking action too.
Then why does the local BLM movement say that they don't know these folks, and apologized for them? Wouldn't you think that they would know who has been involved in activism and who hasn't?
Also, I know it is not common on the internet, but if you really think all that stuff put your real name on it.
I like Bernie Sanders. I work to promote his ideas every day at my job in Washington DC. It is just frustrating to listen to this stuff. I know everybody on here means well, but can't you see how these pro-Bernie comments are more destructive than the protest was.
Nobody, especially me, likes being called out on their privilege. That includes Bernie Sanders. But it is necessary if anything is going to change. Here is a quote from Malcolm X:
"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains"
Is it racism to question the motivations of relative unknowns, and disruptive?
As someone who has protested, even disruptively; you plan well ahead of time, first communicate clearly to your own community your message, so there is no ambiguity or surprises.
If disruption is the goal, the message must be very simple and clear, without any possibility of ambiguity.
And now to my personal view, they failed. it was sloppy, whatever message intended was lost, the did a disservice to BLM, and to everyone else involved.
forgive my ignorance. I was only familiar with the word "Per" meaning "father", and was unaware that it was also a first name.
Malcolm X was IMHO right about some things and wrong about others. One thing I do know, is that if you stand up in front of a crowd and insult them, you lose their attention and sympathy instantly. Have you notice the curious fact that this long comment thread, hailed by some as evidence of the protest's success, has focused entirely on the insults, disruption, and disappointment, and not at all on the messages spoken by the protesters. Shutting your audience's ears before delivering your message is bad rhetoric.
Sandra Bland, Mike Brown, Sam DuBose and thousands of others can not listen to Bernie because they are dead. That was the point of the protest.
Brace yourself for #BernieMatters and then things could get very interesting.
Here's the deal. MOST black kids don't have fathers who stay around and the trend is getting worse. If black lives matter, it should start at home in your own community.
Since you appear to have a magic crystal ball and know more about BLM than BLM, please list the BLM actions you know these women took part or marched in within the past year. Don't worry. I'll happily wait while you gather every example.
Also in reference to #130, I do enjoy having my privilege pointed out to me when it actually exists. I consider it a tool to better myself. It helps me grow and evolve as a person. I highly recommend it, especially in your case.
Accusing others of using race to push their own opinions and agendas while doing it yourself. Malcolm X would be ashamed of you.
Again I feel like it's necessary to state my position I think these BLM disruptions could be meted out more equally but perhaps this is where the most effect can be achieved. I'm less far less discomfited by the anger of these two actors than I am with the white privilege and insistence that if the negros just behave themselves they'd get their message across. The message was very clear and refusal to listen is not the problem of the messenger.
This whole unpleasantness of confrontation goes away if you just recognize the real need to address the issue. Bernie has been talking about it. The demand was he speak louder about it... what is the big deal here?
He got hijacked by amateurs. Now he has to be a part of, support, acknowledge them. When the BLM movement and it's "Supporters" don't vote in any real numbers to help him at all. He's fucked. All he can do now is Cough and Choke in Hillarys dust as she now races to the nomination. And all Bernie has to show for it is a "Black" Anchor around his neck.
You can support BLM and equality and hate cops, whatever, and not feel the need to inject it into every other unrelated political issue. We are all able to hold multiple opinions and think about multiple things at any given moment. Our brains are pretty badass that way. It doesn't make us guilty of white privilege; it makes us multi-dimensional human beings. Or to look at it another way, should we shut down all discussions of gentrification, attempts for lower-cost housing, of taxes, of rent control, homelessness, etc., just to only discuss BLM?
Also, it's really fun to discuss white privilege with other white people. What a nice bit of white privilege we have to throw that term at each other to shut down discussions.
The foundation of effective engagement, ESPECIALLY with potential ALLIES, is "First you talk and I listen, then I talk and you listen." Without that understanding and skill, "activists" become "distractivists."
Then again, since it is your video, you may have more information than I do.
What were they even trying to point out? It was like watching Airheads.
They should have treated them like they do the folks that run the field at safeco.
Agrippa - the blame game is pathetic. Grow up. Be responsible. Or maybe progress isn't as exciting as victimhood.
I think you missed my point. If that was their goal; they did nothing but undermine it.
Who is unreasonable here?
You know, Bernie acquiesced.... the rest of you whining about rudeness have problems.
The problem you, myself, and every other white person frequently fails to understand is that privilege is not something you consciously turn on and off like a spigot; it's present always, every waking moment of our lives, whether we recognize it or not. Acknowledging that fact, admitting that our racism isn't dependent on calling black people niggers, or getting up when one sits next to us on the bus; but instead stems from an entire lifetime of acculturation, indoctrination, and exposure to the advantages white privilege provides us without our having to make any effort to obtain it, is the first step - and a baby one at that - to even beginning to understand the anger, fear, and frustration that drives these black women to commit what we perceive as an annoying inconvenience, and what I can only imagine they view as a desperate cry, not for our understanding and sympathy, but rather for our simple self-recognition that we are ALL, every single last white person in this country, liberal or conservative; rich, poor, or middle class; born of a sense of privilege in which they and their fellow black citizens, regardless of their relative standing in the larger community, will never share, will never be a part of, and will never experience.
And seriously, if you can't see the privilege invested in your belief that YOU think you know what Malcolm X, of all people, would or wouldn't be ashamed of, that YOU can speak with his authority and on his behalf, then you definitely need to have a great deal more of it pointed out to you than has been done already.
Leftist nutjobs (I know, the second word is assumed by the first) are great comic relief for adults. Thanks!
I hear that cry. I support that cry. I would have taken part in a Black Lives Matter protest as a protester, except I was illegally locked in the Transit Tunnel by SPD while the rally passed by (the SPD was openly mocking and jeering the protesters as well).
The Malcolm X point was being made to an internet troll. It was about as serious as most things that came out of Mark Twain's mouth. Besides, my opinion is my own, just as Malcolm X's views are his own. I see no privilege in being able to hold an opinion. I am fairly certain that all minorities on this planet have that luxury at the very least.
You're trying to bash somebody that for the most part agrees with you over their treatment of somebody who was spewing gibberish. I feel your response to be poorly directed as a result.
My main point in this entire thread has been that the actions of these individuals is in no way supported by or representative of BLM. That's all. I haven't weighed in on whether what they did was right or wrong. I haven't maligned them, Bernie Sanders, or BLM. That simple redirection away from the hyperbole has been so ill received that it resulted in what you read before you.
I'm not sure what your declarations concerning privilege have to do with my posts as a direct result. I acknowledge white privilege. I acknowledge being a benefactor of white privilege, and white male privilege at that. Acknowledging the problem is the first step towards a solution. Again, we are for the most part in agreement.
You may fail to understand that privilege is not something you consciously turn on and off like a spigot, but please do not project that onto others. I assure you that there are many white people well aware of this grim fact.
Also just to point out that while people still feel so affronted about the rudeness of the whole deal, Bernie has moved forward without ya'll. Sometimes your job is to listen and learn something not try to exert control.
So is it your contention that ONLY official "representatives" of BLM - is that even, like, an organization? Did they apply for 501(c) 3 non-profit status or something? - has the right to express their outrage and that white people of privilege are not obligated to treat the individual experiences of oppressed peoples as "authentic" unless they align themselves with the official, whites-approved movement-of-the-moment that you yourself would have participated in if only...?
Yes, YOUR opinions are your own, just as were the late Mr. X's HIS. But you weren't expressing YOUR opinion, you were telling the rest of us that you KNEW how Malcolm X would have responded to the actions of these two women. Even if done facetiously that's pretty much the definition of privilege: ascribing to others feelings, attitudes, thoughts, words, or actions they haven't actually given you consent to do on their behalf or for their presumed benefit. You're not Malcom X's spokesperson, you're not the spokesperson for BLM, you're not the spokesperson for All White People. If you're going to express YOUR opinion, at least own it as YOURS, and stop couching it as if it belongs to someone else for whom you have no right to speak.
And parroting my own words back at me just smacks of a juvenile, "I know you are, but what am I?" retort tha projects in its own way, although not perhaps in a manner you consciously intended. But that's the funny thing about privilege: admitting you have it doesn't actually absolve you of having it, does it?
People are free to protest regardless of affiliation. These women intentionally misrepresented themselves and others. The press, even The Stranger, seems quite happy to take that misrepresentation and run with it. Is calling out that behavior really so foreign to you?
Telling me my opinion is not my opinion, while trying to call me out for privilege. Can you see where you're off in left field here? Please do not dictate to me. I have not done so to others, with the exception of somebody who just came to the thread to flamebait. If you really want to call me out for my response to such base behavior feel free. But do not expect it to get any traction with me. You do not get to tell me what I have or have not done, thank you very much.
Parroting your own words back at you should not strike you as juvenile. I do not see how you get that. It is a formal way of trying to get you to see how your words might come across to other people. It is a way of trying to educate you. It is in no way an "I know you are, but what am I?" statement. I know what I am, better than you do. I can only judge you by your words and actions in my presence should we meet. I don't know you as well as you do. I only know how you are coming across.
I'm not sure how I would absolve myself of having privilege. I don't even know what that would look like. I acknowledge it, and I try to bring others up to an equal level. But I don't know of any penance method that will magically wipe away my privilege. If you know of some method I don't, please tell me. But I would personally argue that right here and now stopping inequality is much more key to our future than what I see as the futility of trying to absolve ourselves of our past. We do not have a time machine. We cannot change what we have done. We can only work to make the future a better place, and that in part includes calling out times when minority groups are intentionally hijacked by third parties.
No, I am not in fact "missing the point", instead I am pointing out that there is no "point" to be missed. WE don't get to tell ANYONE they are or are not a part of BLM, because WE do not have that authority - it's simply our own privileged status that makes us believe we have authority not granted to us. The fact is no one, whether they're self-identified as affiliated with BLM or not, has that right because BLM isn't any sort of coherent, organized, hierarchically-driven organization; it doesn't have a head office or an executive director or an official spokesperson or letterhead or even a fucking address where you can send your federally tax-exempt donation; it's thousands and thousands of individuals expressing anger and frustration at seeing their brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children, neighbors summarily executed at the hands of oppressive authority figures. They don't need, nor are they asking for, our approval or support to do this, and I seriously doubt it matters to them one way or the other if we grant or withhold it. And that's the butt-hurt being experienced by many fair-weather liberals right now: the sobering, humiliating, and ultimately emasculating fact that - THEY DON'T NEED US.
And I was perfectly CLEAR in my expression that you ARE entitled to YOUR opinion, but when you tell us that "Malcolm X would have been ashamed" of what these women did, you're no longer expressing YOUR opinion, you're telling us this is what you believe HE would assert, based on nothing more than your desire to use his name as a strawman, an appeal to authority, neither of which you have any right to claim, and that's why I'm calling you out. If YOU want to be ashamed by their actions - although I cannot for the life of me fathom why you would feel so personally affronted by something that has such negligible impact on your own life and status - just say so; but you don't get to drag Malcolm X into it just to give your opinion weight and authority it neither deserves nor warrants.
You want to know how I absolve myself of privilege? First of all, I don't presume I know what's better for other people than they know for themselves. I don't attempt to make them conform to my personal standards, and I don't diminish their experience as invalid simply because it doesn't correlate with my own. I don't disregard their tactics, even if it makes me personally uncomfortable, particularly when it seems to actually advance their strategy. Everyone is complaining about how what these women did was rude, ineffectual, that it set their "cause" back - as if we are better arbiters of what that cause is and how it should be articulated than they are - and yet, we're almost 200 comments into this thread holding a vigorous debate - from our mostly privileged middle-class (or thereabouts) white perspective, and low and behold, Bernie Sanders is actually showing up at rallies only a few hours after this "ineffective disruption" and DIRECTLY ADDRESSING the issues they articulated - which, by all indications was THEIR POINT, so calling it a poor tactic on their part would seem to be a woeful misreading of their objectives and the effect their actions have had. Rather, by all accounts it would seem to have been highly effective; it's just that many people, unfortunately, can't come to terms with the fact that they're on the outside looking in, that it wasn't THEM who steered, cajoled, pushed Sanders in this direction, it was a pair of very angry, very motivated, and very defiant black women who DID.
"To everyone who visits this page, it will be deleted affective immediately. I am 16 and I started this page to raise awareness about this cause. I am not officially associated with BLM. I recant the apology I made that was not at all associated with what happened. I am sorry for the confusion. But please, please don't stop supporting Black Lives Matter!! I will still believe in them and I hope that you will too!! #StayWoke everyone."
She then changed her facebook page to "Black in Seattle." Her apology is in no way associated with BLM and she does not represent BLM.
Also if you want "To Change Things". Then do what it takes to do that. I'll say it twice.
First: "Change Comes From Within"
You want to change things?
Well, get yourself elected to Local Office. City Council, County Board, etc.
Or, if you're smart enough. Get your Law Degree and run for State Office. Be a State Representitive, or Senator. Or Governor even. From there you can actually make and affect change. More so than holding up a sign or your hands and looking STUPID.
You can also run for Congress. Then you can affect change in. National Scale. Unless your too stupid. Or only like to hold up signs, etc.
You want "Change"?
BE THE CHANGE!!
Second Time: Change Comes From Within.
If your not going to do any of that.
Those girls are not from black lives matter, they're from the anarchist group "Outside Agitators 206"
Their fake "Black Lives Matter Seattle" Facebook page was created 1hr before the rally at Westlake. The REAL BLM page said they do not know those girls and apologized for what they did.
Google their names. I'm sure they're hard at work removing the evidence by now...
Mara Willaford listed as a panelist for Outside Agitators 206: http://carw.org/2015/02/02/visionary-pol…
Marissa Jenae listed as an organizer for Outside Agitators 206:
You never made it clear I was entitled to my opinion. You sat there and dictated my opinion to me. You told me what my opinion was, which in point of fact is an attempt to take my opinion away from me and insert your your projection in its place.
You absolutely presume to know what's better for people than they know for themselves. That is precisely what you've been trying to do to me this whole time. You completely tried to make me conform to your personal standards. You're half White Knighting for Per, half "Gamergating" this entire conversation. All you're doing is exactly what you're claiming you're not doing. I'm just trying to decide if it more humorous or pathetic, and that all boils down to how intentionally disingenuous I think you are being. Considering how you're spreading your misinformation on other threads now, Im leaning towards pretty intentional and pathetic.
That's because these women have just as much of a claim to BLM as anyone else. Just because someone starts the first FB page does not mean they run a Seattle chapter of an organization.
Perhaps if you looked in the mirror and LISTENED TO YOURSELF as you said in @153:
"The person organizing and running it claims to be "...the Black Student Union President here at Garfield High.". Just because there's a BLM banner and chant does not make it a BLM event. BLM can't just take over a high school auditorium to hold a meeting. That would violate numerous SPS statutes."
Alas libertine, your sleuth work solved the mystery. The Black Student Union President at Garfield and the 16-year old running the BLM Seattle website are one and the same.
And sadly she had to weather 100s of posts from outraged liberals about what a horrible thing she did. To the point where a 16-year old girl doing incredible things was shamed and bullied into changing the name of her page to escape the abuse.
But I guess Bernie had to change his page to escape the abuse too.
You are all beautiful and intelligent and I love you deeply
"Nikki" further goes on to confess something that quite a few people here on this venue need to hear. "I started this page under the name Black Lives Matter Seattle with out realizing I had to check with the official chapter members of Seattle and the national network." She admits what you deny, that there is an official national BLM organization. At this point even the charlatans cannot deny that. Why can you?
Nikki also confesses that the reason she changed the name had to due with the fact that she was illegally claiming to act under the auspices of BLM. Bullying had nothing to do with it at all.
I am curious as to how you can simultaneously bash me and give me more evidence I am right at the same time. I'd say truly you have a dizzying intellect, but I suspect no intellect at all is involved.
I admit that upon reading just the headline itself, "Activists Interrupt Sanders," I felt some sort of contempt in my mind; the same desire to admonish the young activists for stepping on the toes of their closest allies in our current political system. But therein lies the key to the entire issue -- the SYSTEM is who these women are against, not a specific PARTY, not a specific candidate.
Those out there who are deciding between Sanders and Hillary and hold themselves in such high regard for their progressive morals, defining their identity in contrast to the conservatives on the other side of the ticket, may have their hearts in the right place, but in practice they are part and parcel the the repressive system which they claim to abhor.
Oh, the actions of the activists alienated you as an ally? I guess you weren't such a fucking ally, then, were you?
It's rather like a liberal version of the conservative's "some people who claim to be Muslims commit acts of terrorism, therefore all Muslims are terrorists" logic: "a couple of black women claiming to be members of BLM disrupted a Bernie Sanders rally; therefore, the entire BLM movement is discredited and I refuse to support any actions in which it takes part."
I understand you didn't like the rudeness but Bernie's been talking about entitlements and economics for long long time. If his base is going to grow, he has to open up his platform and speak clearly about new subject. I'm impressed with his opening and candor about how he needs to listen and grow.
Bernie is handling this fine. Why can't his supporters move with him?
Activism for a deeply systemic issue is going to be uncomfortable. If you're a supporter, stop worrying about Bernie's campaign, he's going to do just fine (especially if you channel that frustration into volunteering) and start listening to what is being said and why it is being said. Feeding the conspiracy theories or being condescending "if they knew what was best for them" is not helping. Being respectful, addressing their concerns and moving ahead with constructive action will help. #bernie2016 #BLM
I feel like if this continues we'll lose everything, and no one will benefit.
that's painfully idiotic, if your premise is correct and this was an action to show how apathetic blm supporters are and correlating them to racists what kind of support should be expected?
what do you want white people to do, get shot by cops?
Respect goes both ways
When I hear some one in a position of privilege say "respect goes both ways" or if you don't respect me I won't respect you" what I hear under that is:
Respect my position above you or I won't respect your humanity"
I think we can definitely shrug it off. Sure, name calling and speaker blocking might not be super productive, and some raw emotions were expressed and generated, people were offended -- but we can still shrug it off and continue to support actual liberation & the groups working for it. And importantly: also talk to other white folks elsewhere & encourage them to shrug it off as well, redoubling all of our support for #BLM and the related groups/movements.
If anything I would optimistically suggest that *increased* and unambiguous support from white communities now will not only 1. get more shit done to reduce the killings/jailings/oppression, but importantly 2. let Blacks see that they actually *do* have allies, allies that can take a little bit of shit now and again, which will in turn reduce the need/tendency for actions such as this one at all. Pulling our hand back now because of a little sting won't benefit anyone's liberation. Our hand is much stronger anyway, by default. Better to be calm.
In fact, those with the power and privilege on their side have a specific responsibility to be extra patient and not react to provocations, but instead continue to work for peace and justice despite them. That is, if they are really serious about wanting peace and justice for all. We can take the hit this time around. It's not that big of a deal.
Remember: Privilege doesn't feel like privilege. It feels like the way things are. No reason to be aware of it.
(spoken as a cauc. male. I look like my avatar, mostly)
SUUUUUUURE, these conservative Christians aren't picking a particular candidate and party to attack. Hence why we saw them attacking Rubio over the weekend. Right? RIGHT???
Perhaps we should just see this as a political attack on the right and an attempt to cause distrust in the black community for candidates like Sanders. That way they'll have lower voter turnout and these &^$&@ get to have their conservative agenda win the presidency.
They're FBI plants. They're Clinton plants. They're right wing Christian plants.
Because it's just inconceivable that black people could be this pissed off about their situation. It has to be about the machinations of one group of white people trying to foil the efforts of the favored son of another group of white people using black people as pawns.
Because god knows black people are incapable of agency let alone political goals that don't prioritize the feelings and strategies of white people.
I know it may be an uncomfortable thing to consider, but maybe, just maybe, black people are done listening to us, and being gracious and letting us tell them what's best, and if we aren't interested in listening to them and considering that maybe their issues should be at the top of the political agenda for a change then we can just go ahead and get off the bus for all they care.
We think they need us. We've convinced them over the years that they need us.
Well guess what? Maybe they don't.
Hey, Carson just said that he believes black lives matter while deriding social services helping the black community as slavery! He must actually care about BLM, right?
It's easy to forget in cozy, liberal Seattle that liberals are basically living under siege in this country. All the electoral math, and everything about how the system functions, favors conservatives. If we start infighting and allow chinks in our armor, the conservatives will steamroll us and we'll be worse off than we have been in decades.