2016 Elections

[JTA]

Somewhat related: I've just backed away from, not quit, a group that started running trainings exclusively by and for people of color. My attitude is that if that's what they think they need to do, fine, PoC can use all the help they can get here. However, I can't stay as enthusiastic about a group where I've become a sometimes automatically excluded, partial member.

How is that not blatantly racist though? By people of color, does that mean only whites and North-eastern Asians are excluded?

I get the supposed logic behind it, even though I strongly disagree with it. It seems like exclusions based on race is in and of itself contributing, even if inadvertently, to the problem of racism. It's essentially saying, "Hey, we've got different skin colors, we're different. Skin color, race, isn't only skin deep, so we need to exclude everyone not in our group."

Maybe I need to remove my rose-tinted glasses for a moment, but it seems the opposite ought to be promoted. Unity despite our skin tones i.e. we're all human let's just all be bros and sit in a circle and smoke a J together.

[Vrede too]

I haven't had the discussion yet, not sure that I want to burn bridges. However, I suspect the response will be along the lines of the need for a safe space, shared experience and independent achievement of personal power. I'm not gonna argue with that. As Bernie says, I "don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto." The point is about making the most capable activists out of oppressed people, not about my feelings.

Would you object to being excluded from a rape prevention group if there were other ones you could help out? What if you were excluded from just some of its meetings, which is more like the situation I'm in? Would that be blatantly sexist?

Fwiw, I was an integral part - training and 1st aid - of a large immigrant rights training put on by the same group. It's not like they've gone entirely exclusive.

Calling it "blatantly racist" is a bit extreme. It's not like I'm being denied anything that's available to others, I'm just being told in effect that my time and energy contributions will be passed on sometimes. The only case I'll make, if I bother, will be that it makes me less enthusiastic. They can then calculate whether that kind of loss (including the annual $1000 I didn't give before the holidays) is worth the other gains, and I'm fine with that.

[O Really]

Skin color isn't the real issue. It's the culture. If you've never been anywhere but the old 9th Ward in New Orleans, your view of the world is limited. Your perception of who you are and what you can do is limited. There may be opportunities to improve or get out, but you can't see them. Would apply to white people too, in identical circumstances, but most people in those circumstances are indeed "of color."

What was the group training?

[Vrede too]

... What was the group training?

In general, nonviolent direct action philosophy, strategy and tactics. Same same for the immigrant rights training if that's the one you're asking about. I don't know the specifics about the PoC training since I was excluded. Nothing so rude as, "We don't want you, whitey," just not in the loop.

[JTA]

I haven't had the discussion yet, not sure that I want to burn bridges. However, I suspect the response will be along the lines of the need for a safe space, shared experience and independent achievement of personal power. I'm not gonna argue with that. As Bernie says, I "don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto." The point is about making the most capable activists out of oppressed people, not about my feelings.

Would you object to being excluded from a rape prevention group if there were other ones you could help out? What if you were excluded from just some of its meetings, which is more like the situation I'm in? Would that be blatantly sexist?

Fwiw, I was an integral part - training and 1st aid - of a large immigrant rights training put on by the same group. It's not like they've gone entirely exclusive.

Calling it "blatantly racist" is a bit extreme. It's not like I'm being denied anything that's available to others, I'm just being told in effect that my time and energy contributions will be passed on sometimes. The only case I'll make, if I bother, will be that it makes me less enthusiastic. They can then calculate whether that kind of loss (including the annual $1000 I didn't give before the holidays) is worth the other gains, and I'm fine with that.

Maybe some context as to what it is would clear things up, but if the same were to be done for, say, only rural Appalachian whites to share their experiences growing up poor, or whatever, would that be considered discriminatory, even if only on certain occasions others were to be excluded, but not all the time? I'd certainly say so.I hate to break out the ol' over-used reverse racism argument, but I still think the example is pertinent.

Excluding males from a rape prevention seminar isn't as comparable, in my opinion, as there are inherent physical differences between men and women that run deeper than skin color. I can't get pregnant, I don't have a vagina, I don't have a period and I won't go through menopause. I'm physically stronger than most (not all) women. It's typically a man doing the raping, since usually the male is the stronger of the two sexes. I'll simply never be able to know what it's like to be a woman.

Also, it's not unheard of for whites to grow up amongst minorities in poor, marginalized areas, sharing the experiences of growing up in such a community.

[O Really]

"I was born a poor black child..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwz-mlJPL0

[JTA]

[Vrede too]

Maybe some context as to what it is would clear things up,

In general, nonviolent direct action philosophy, strategy and tactics training. More specifically, doing actions as a PoC on behalf of oppressed PoCs. I can get arrested 100 times and I'll never be subjected to police racism on top of it. I'll also never be able to cite a lifetime of black experience that motivated me.

but if the same were to be done for, say, only rural Appalachian whites to share their experiences growing up poor, or whatever, would that be considered discriminatory, even if only on certain occasions others were to be excluded, but not all the time? I'd certainly say so.I hate to break out the ol' over-used reverse racism argument, but I still think the example is pertinent.

One can be dirt poor here and still not know what it's like to be black and poor.

Excluding males from a rape prevention seminar isn't as comparable, in my opinion, as there are inherent physical differences between men and women that run deeper than skin color. I can't get pregnant, I don't have a vagina, I don't have a period and I won't go through menopause. I'm physically stronger than most (not all) women.

The only distinction that matters is the one that automatically disadvantages you, whether female or nonwhite.

It's typically a man doing the raping, since usually the male is the stronger of the two sexes. I'll simply never be able to know what it's like to be a woman.

You'll never be able to know what it's like to be nonwhite.

Also, it's not unheard of for whites to grow up amongst minorities in poor, marginalized areas, sharing the experiences of growing up in such a community.

That takes care of being poor, but not black and poor. Put one of each in a suit and give them diction lessons and only one remains black.

[JTA]

Maybe some context as to what it is would clear things up,

In general, nonviolent direct action philosophy, strategy and tactics training. More specifically, doing actions as a PoC on behalf of oppressed PoCs. I can get arrested 100 times and I'll never be subjected to police racism on top of it. I'll also never be able to cite a lifetime of black experience that motivated me.

but if the same were to be done for, say, only rural Appalachian whites to share their experiences growing up poor, or whatever, would that be considered discriminatory, even if only on certain occasions others were to be excluded, but not all the time? I'd certainly say so.I hate to break out the ol' over-used reverse racism argument, but I still think the example is pertinent.

One can be dirt poor here and still not know what it's like to be black and poor.

Excluding males from a rape prevention seminar isn't as comparable, in my opinion, as there are inherent physical differences between men and women that run deeper than skin color. I can't get pregnant, I don't have a vagina, I don't have a period and I won't go through menopause. I'm physically stronger than most (not all) women.

The only distinction that matters is the one that automatically disadvantages you, whether female or nonwhite.

It's typically a man doing the raping, since usually the male is the stronger of the two sexes. I'll simply never be able to know what it's like to be a woman.

You'll never be able to know what it's like to be nonwhite.

Also, it's not unheard of for whites to grow up amongst minorities in poor, marginalized areas, sharing the experiences of growing up in such a community.

That takes care of being poor, but not black and poor. Put one of each in a suit and give them diction lessons and only one remains black.

Agreed. Fair enough.

[Vrede too]

One of the first adult books I read was Black Like Me. Though the details have changed, I'll bet that it would still be enlightening.

[JTA]

One of the first adult books I read was Black Like Me. Though the details have changed, I'll bet that it would still be enlightening.

Sounds like an interesting read. I remember reading about that book.

[Vrede too]

... Hillary's national lead has grown to +9.6% since 2/27....

Now Hillary +12.0.

Hillary has a double digit lead in Michigan, Mississippi, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Illinois.

I'd say that Bernie's faint hopes are done this week or certainly next. I hope he stays in to keep raising the issues and as a safety net in case Hillary is charged, but he may drop out for the good of the party and nation.

I hope it works out. Bernie +8 vs. Trump to Hillary +3.4, and Bernie +9.7 vs. Cruz to Hillary -1.5. Then, there's Congress - what kind of coattails will Hillary have?

Prediction: Hillary picks a Latino running mate to boost turnout if it's her vs. Cruz, and maybe also if it's her vs. Trump though she won't need to as much.

[Vrede too]

NC elections, Dem ballot, my picks in case any of y’all are lazy and want to just vote with or against a radical lefty:

POTUS: Bernie!
US Senate: Chris Rey
US House 11: Tom Hill
Governor: Ken Spaulding
Lieutenant Governor: Holly Jones
Attorney General: Josh Stein
NC Commissioner of Labor: Mazie Ferguson
Superintendent of Public Instruction: June Atkinson
Treasurer: Ron Elmer

[O Really]

National Republican Senatorial Committee tweets a stinging criticism of Dem member of Congress (and Senate Candidate) Tammy Duckworth. Says she "has a sad record of not standing up for our veterans."

(Duckworth lost both her legs while piloting a Blackhawk in combat.)

Idiots.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/t ... eet-220441

[Vrede too]

... Hillary has a double digit lead in Michigan ...

Well, those pollsters suck.

[Vrede too]

(Super Tuesday) Clinton six + barely MA, Bernie four. He's still in it, sorta. With most of the South now done, he might be more competitive. MA and Iowa are the only non-southern states Clinton has won, and those were both squeakers.

Clinton LA big, Bernie KS big and NE, the pattern holds.

Still, MS huge & MI close, then Trump x 2.

[O Really]

Hillary's having a hard time in MI so far, but a lot of Hillary-friendly places haven't turned in their vote yet, as of 10:45 (9:45cst)
See county by county here...
http://www.freep.com/pages/interactives ... 2016/#d-mi

[Vrede too]

I wouldn't know, but with est % in: 86%
Sanders 51.0%
Clinton 47.1%

4% would be hard to make up regardless of local quirks. Bit of a shocker.

[Vrede too]

Exit poll

Sanders wins "Some college/assoc. degree" & "College graduate".
Clinton wins "High school or less" & "Postgraduate study".
Odd.

Sanders wins the middle class.
Clinton wins the poor.
They tie for the rich.

No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a:
Democrat 57% Clinton.
Independent or something else 70% Sanders.
November implications?

They tie for the union vote, Sanders wins non-union.

[Vrede too]

... 4% would be hard to make up regardless of local quirks....

est % in: 92%
Sanders 49.9%
Clinton 48.1%

http://www.cnn.com/