Oh wow. So when she calls for “separating law enforcement and immigration enforcement” for racialized people, it’s actually a call for a separate systems for white people and people of color? I trust her but it seems like a dangerous thing to set up because the next president might be another Trump.
I’m wondering if there are two definitions-- one used by neonazis and one used by persons who are “racialized” by a society that wishes to ignore them.
De-racialization is a political strategy to promote candidates of color for statewhite political office. It was promulgated in the 1970s by Charles Hamilton
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=poliscifacpub
In 1976, Hamilton revisited the concept of deracialization in a position paper commis- sioned by the Democratic Party. During this presentation, he advised presidential candidates to emphasize issues that would attract voters across racial lines (Hamilton 1977). Hamilton argued that programs targeted directly at minorities failed to capture white votes. Thus, he urged civil rights groups and the Democratic Party to work for “deracialized solutions” such as national health insurance and an income maintenance program (McCormick and Jones 1993: 70). William Julius Wilson (1990) expanded upon Hamilton’s message by suggesting that the Democratic Party embrace a progressive “race neutral program.” Wilson stated that blacks and liberals who have pushed “a race specific agenda” (e.g., affirmative action, minority set-asides, busing) create a major barrier to those advocating broader programs that would be more attractive to white voters.
In this context, those who judge Obama by his politics deracialize him; those who judge Obama by the color of his skin racialize him.
1 Like
That wasn’t how I read that at all.
It’s more - separate the enforcement of immigration laws from all other laws, so that you don’t have people afraid to report crimes because they fear being deported, and it removes the ability for racists in the police force to generate “probable cause” whenever they want to harass someone whose skin tone they don’t like.
11 Likes
Nice for us here, but it looks like she’s totally ok with graduates of the School of the Americas staging an explicitly anti-native coup in Bolivia. She is clearly accepting the legitimacy of the coup plotters’ government here.
4 Likes
There’s a lot of Christo-fascists in the military. I suspect there’s overlap.
5 Likes
Or, she might be saying what she’s saying, that the interim leadership must limit itself to preparing for an early, legitimate election?
4 Likes
I’m not talking about pissing them off. I’m talking about handing them a propaganda tool. I’d rather not let them spin a program on tolerance as “government sponsored anti-white indoctrination in our schools.”
Pissing them off isn’t the goal. Ending them is. Giving them a slogan they can use to recruit and rally support from those that are already mistrustful of federal involvement in schools is counterproductive.
1 Like
Good. Whoever wins the primaries, they need to grab this and make it part of their platform.
2 Likes
“Interim leadership” implies legitimacy.
If she wanted to make a statement that didn’t imply legitimacy, she already had a very good example to work from:
7 Likes
Ok, that makes a lot more sense.
1 Like
Perhaps I’m missing the difference in positions, but is Sanders advocating for something other than what Warren is?
2 Likes
Very different.
She refers to the coup plotters as “interim leadership” rather than as a coup, and she is clearly implying that the last election wasn’t legitimate, but the next one will be.
4 Likes
Movement conservatism is going to use any framing that opposes institutionalised white supremacy by turning it into a propaganda tool to preserve it. You mentioned Mr. Rogers above, as if he and his message would be beyond their reach, but they regularly attack him, too. And “alllivesmatter” isn’t helpful, except in distracting from the real issues.
This is about fascism and racism. Might as well just call them what they are and say they’re unacceptable, because they are.
8 Likes
Sanders is condemning the removal of Morales (and explicitly calling a coup), Warren isn’t. Sanders is saying that the people who committed the coup are bad, Warren is saying that the people who committed the coup need to be limit their newfound power.
3 Likes
But neither that nor @John_Johnson’s post above actually points to any difference in what they’re advocating. Other than the phrase “interim leadership,” what is the difference, if any, in policy?
ETA: I’m not trying to be obtuse here, I’m genuinely asking if there is a difference in what Warren and Sanders are actually proposing, as opposed to speculation based on exegesis of one phrase in a tweet.
3 Likes
It does not, not to me.
3 Likes
But people who wish to exclude and ethnically cleanse or at the least disenfranchise large portions of the population (which is OBJECTIVELY their goal) are, indeed, bad - or at least promoting incredibly destructive ideas. Should we ignore the destruction of virulent nationalism in our curriculum, for fear of offending delicate white nationalist feelings? Should we teach “both sides” of the holocaust? Should we gloss over the lynching epidemic or downplay the violence of wrenching millions of human beings from their home by force and forcing them to labor for free? Should we ignore the genocide of aboriginal people around the world? All of these are well-established historical facts that we can’t ignore or we’re only doing disservice to our students. Lying to them about reality (historical or in the present) is not educating them, it’s miseducating them. Full stop.
15 Likes
Sanders is not saying that they should have another election, or implying that an election called by the current regime would be legitimate.
Friend, I think you’re straining to find a distinction where none exists by making the most uncharitable reading possible of Warren’s statement while reading a bunch into Sanders’ statement. I just don’t see any difference in policy that isn’t speculation based on reading the tea leaves of two short tweets.
Take care.
5 Likes
For god sakes, I’m not advocating that. Heck, that should be part of the curriculum. I’m not talking about content.
I’m talking about how you BRAND the curriculum. This about using the tools of marketing, advertising, psychology, etc to create an image of the program so that it’s harder to counter.
What you name it matters. How you brand it matters. People aren’t interested in eating “Corn, Vegetable Oil , Maltodextrin, Salt, Cheddar Cheese, Monosodium Glutamate snacks.” But we love Doritos.
