Yep.
To be fair, too many democrats expect POC to be happy with the rising tide raising all boats shtick, but the economic problems that POC face aren't all economic based.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Root: 'Hillary Is Not Your White Savior'
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
Yep.
To be fair, too many democrats expect POC to be happy with the rising tide raising all boats shtick, but the economic problems that POC face aren't all economic based.
It's an issue thats pointing more towards the primaries and not the general election. And if anyone was around GAF during the last primaries then you know how that discussion turned out.
I've said it before in other threads and I still feel the same. The DNC and centrists need to stop worrying about appealing to moderates, the most flaky ass group. They need to spend more time, effort and money on their current more reliable base who has a hard time coming together and in many districts are being kept from voting. They need to get into black communities more instead of distancing themselves from "identity politics". Getting the youth and disenfranchised invigorated into politics and voting for their rights. Shaping leaders for the future of the Dem party. This is what the GOP and all these nazis and alt-righters are scared shitless of happening.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Nobody was thinking Hillary was going to be a white savior, but she would have been a decent President and LIGHT YEARS better than this shitshow. The GOP's incompetence is the only thing saving us now.
GoldenEye 007
Member
That's the funny thing. She was one of the few mainstream politicians willing to openly state that. And she had the guts to call a good chunk of the Trump base pieces of shit. Which as we are seeing even more now, she was 100% right on. Except maybe she should have said more and also not apologized.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
There are no saviors. You would have to wipe the system clean and start over for that to even be a possibility. (but then certain folks are still gonna vote how they're gonna vote, so yeah...)
Yep. They need to rally the base and then go after non-voters.
I've been thinking about this briefly. What happens after Trump gets ousted? The structured, institutionalized racism is still going to persist at all levels of American society. This isn't something electing the correct president will fix. It feels to me that an upheaval is needed to awaken white people so that they are forced to stare into and acknowledge the lingering presence of white supremacy baked into our culture, our norms and our subconsciousness as Americans.
For some this is what Trump's election exactly was.
For some this is what Trump's election exactly was.
She wouldn't even need to do something to combat them, her being elected would have kept them down. They came out of the woodworks because Trump won. They came out because they saw someone rewarded for their ideas.
Her losing was the average American saying they didn't care about the language Trump and his followers used. That is how that right wing nationalism got so famous again, people looked at it and thought they shouldn't do anything.
Her losing was the average American saying they didn't care about the language Trump and his followers used. That is how that right wing nationalism got so famous again, people looked at it and thought they shouldn't do anything.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Ah, the old 'perfect is the enemy of good' take. White supremacists marching on the streets with torches because they're emboldened by Trump isn't enough.
Let's see if they still feel that way in four years.
It's easy to get out and get active when there are literal Nazis marching in the streets.
lightskintwin
Banned
To add to this, the sentiment that the Democrats have taken for granted the Black vote has been there for awhile in a lot of Black communities.
El_Tiguere
Member
This is what Bernie Sanders and progressives are all about, hence they are the future of the party. The youth black vote and independents were behind him. Imperial Democrats who have been complicit in everything that has happened since the 1980s share a lot of the blame.
You're right. Overt displays of racism got the most reactions from what I see. But unfortunately some people I see on my FB raging against Nazis have also posted against Ferguson protesters rioting using misinterpreted MLK nonviolence quotes.
Then they also shat on Kaepernick for kneeling.
Something isnt PERFECTION so it might as well be nothing.
I agree with everything you said.
IrishNinja
Member
amen
black women are the core of the dems' base, the eagerness with which they & other minority groups get toss over with every decry of "identity politics" (from the side that's supposed to give a shit) is staggering, and no lessons are learned from it
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
I agree. These groups were always in the woodwork & it took a controversial presidential election to expose them.
Hillary was always pro status quo who enjoyed a very close association witha war criminal Henry Kissinger. If only people like Kissinger were under as heavy scrutiny as Trump things may change.
Status quo is broken.
Hillary was always pro status quo who enjoyed a very close association with
Status quo is broken.
eBay Huckster
Member
who in the name of fuck was acting like clinton was going to be the savior of anything, though
Unknown One
Member
Anybody that isn't a piece of shit, racist, and etc, would be a savior compared to Trump.
Since when? The time they were clamoring to pursue the white working class after the election, and complaining about the excessive focus on identity politics instead of economics?
Historical revision is unbecoming.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
FTFY
Also:
- No Jeff Sessions
- No Betsy Devos
- No Tom Price
- No Breitbart, Alex Jones and the likes in the White House
I'm sure I'm forgetting tons of it. But yeah. This article is a stupid strawman anyway.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
No, she was our savior abuela
And it is a strange thing. Trump is so awful for this country, this planet, but his actions are forcing us to deal with these racial issues. I dont know how to come to terms with that.
And it is a strange thing. Trump is so awful for this country, this planet, but his actions are forcing us to deal with these racial issues. I dont know how to come to terms with that.
Yep, that's why having a presidential candidate that openly and publicly addressed institutional racism was so important - the political will isn't there in the white majority to truly start to address the problem beyond squashing its extremist symptoms. So you need a leader who is willing to have that conversation even if the majority isn't really interested.
Can add "No climate change denial at a federal level" to the list.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
You should know better than to reply to the obvious (apparently forum approved) troll.
lightskintwin
Banned
Stupid strawman? What was the strawman? Did you even read the article?
UnemployedVillain
Member
This. The article seems to have concocted it's own imaginary claim and argued against it, despite no one making the claim in the first place. Hillary would have been MUCH better than Trump. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is an inarguable, as close to objective as possible, fact.
Not to mention, for as "centrist" and two-face as people claim Hillary was her calling a segment of Trump supporters "deplorables" was the most honest, least sugar coasted statement any politician has said, on that high a stage, that I can recall.
While this is true, the article seems to forget that we've had numerous studies showing a significant increase in the number of hate crimes pretty much since the election season. There's absolutely no doubt that was a result of Trump
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
No one should ever go after non-voters.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Suggesting people considered her a "white savior?" Nobody claims this.
I'm guessing the strawman in the title of the thread.
Okay, if you think going after the Cult of Trump is going to be more productive you go right ahead. Because those are your two big groups that aren't already in the tent.
Did you? The strawman is people arguing that Hilary would save us from white supremacy.
Like the article she mentions before going into her strawman rant is saying that things would have been different under Clinton because white supremacists wouldn't have been so emboldened as they are now that they don't even cover their faces. No one is arguing the premise she is arguing against.
Dude Abides
Banned
Neither of the pieces are very good.
lightskintwin
Banned
It's an editorial written by a Black woman in response to a New York time's article written by a Black woman waxing poetically about a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
I feel fairly comfortable with the judgment that it's worse to have an open Nazi sympathizer in the White House than someone who isn't an open Nazi sympathizer.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
This is correct. I mean, the potential SCOTUS picks alone would've been some tremendous upside. But now? It's all fucked up.
I dont understand how people could have expected any Democrat to be a "savior" to POC. Obama was the best you'd probably ever get and he didnt do much. Any candidate that ran on an aggressive SJW platform will probably never pass a primary. Sad facts but thats the reality we live in.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Things would be better if a Nazi sympathizer, Jeff Sessions, and Neil Gorsuch weren't in their offices, yes.
Except it's arguing against an argument that wasn't in the article you mention. The article in question was also written by a Black woman.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
The term White saviour here is kind of baffling, like they imagine us shouting "thank you white woman"
That is pretty explicitly the platform Hillary ran on.
The New York Times article does not wax poetically about a Hilary Clinton presidency.
That is not the point of the article. Maybe read it?
UnemployedVillain
Member
Exactly. Hillary ran on an EXPLICIT identity politics platform. She didn't try pulling the whole "Fix the economy and social issues are fixed as well" line either. She was on as close to a SJW platform as we've ever gotten and probably will for a while, since "identity politics" seems to be the new "socialism" now
lightskintwin
Banned
Now you've created a strawman. Once again did you read the article. LOL Just like much didn't change under Obama for Black communities.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I was just going to post this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/sunday/hate-that-doesnt-hide.html
Since apparently people did not bother to read the original article.
All I got out of this article is an endorsement of the type of accelerationism that other Sanders/Stein democrats seemingly wished for with the election of Trump. And yeah I guess when we have people staging protests and getting involved it seems to be working, but none of that means anything unless it turns into actual action in the polls (this remains a big IF as long as purity tests and infighting remain). Of course that's not to say the immense damage that is happening to our reputation, institutions and domestic policy in the mean time.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
it was?