I do typically try to stay on topic here, the topic being Games
and Computers, shit like that. Sometimes however, I've got to keep it
100 and talk about other things. This is one such time, so buckle up
buttercup...
Beginnings are difficult, some subjects have no easily discernable
start or finish even. For example, what is the beginning of good? Well
the letter G obviously, but that's beside the point. I've been
considering for some time several issues that tie together in various
ways. The complexity of the issue(s) in question made starting a
discourse inherently difficult. And so, I decided to begin (for reasons
that will I hope later become apparent) with the word "fan".
Merriam Webster defines the word as follows:
1 : an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator.
2 : an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit).
The first known use of this word in this way dates back to 1682 and is most likely a abbreviation of the word
fanatic.
Yes, I know a fan is also a device or action used to move air and/or cool an area, but that's irrelevant for our discussion.
This
is precisely why one should have care when applying the term either to
oneself or others, there is an important distinction between a fan and a
supporter. A supporter has the ability to hold that which they support
accountable, to be critical of mistakes. Fans on the other hand may
throw their lot in with the target of their adoration, excusing any
mistakes and denying accountability at every turn. Of course, there's a
breaking point. And once it's reached the "fan" will feel betrayed and
then things can get very ugly, very quickly. Which brings me to my first
point, things getting ugly...
March 3rd, 1991
On
that day four Los Angeles Police Officers beat Rodney King on camera.
The four officers were acquitted sparking the 92 Los Angeles Riots.
Afterward, Federal Authorities sought to indict the officers on Civil
Rights charges. 2 of the four officers were found guilty and sentenced
to 30 months in prison. For many this was a tragic, though isolated
incident of racially motivated violence and excessive use of force
against minorities. And it was left forgotten for many years, until last
year we were reminded with a long string of isolated incidents...
Michael
Brown who was accused of stealing a box of cigarillos from convenience
store was shot multiple times by Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson.
Wilson at the time of this writing is still unemployed, but alive and a
free man living off of donations made by totally not racist supporters.
Tamir Rice was shot by a cop for having a toy gun in a park. Meanwhile,
the ongoing criminal investigation continues to mount increasing
financial hardship on the mother of the long since deceased boy, killed
before he could comply. Yes, Rice's mother was in a homeless shelter
before the shooter was officially interviewed it's a situation my
grandfather would only be able to refer to as FUBAR.
In fact, just in the past year there's been so many that it's hard to
keep up. And much like the Rodney King incident we have video, sometimes
multiple videos of the officers. Only now, they're skipping the beating
with batons. They're skipping the tasers and going straight to deadly
force. Though for women of color they've added public body cavity
searches to their repertoire of awful. If there's anything surprising
about the conversation to me, it's that the conversation is taking place
at all. That it's continued past Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric
Garner, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, past the AME shooting in
South Carolina, and on and on.
It's a depressing
litany of violence, and every name is a reminder of the violation of
trust between the American Justice System and the People. By now, you're
probably wondering why I started with the word fan then went directly
into a discussion about violence and violations of authority figures
against members of the communities they are sworn to protect...
The Sanders Incidents
Ah,
so... we finally circumspectly arrive at the original point. I am not a
fan of Bernie Sanders. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I am not a
fan of any presidential candidate actually, I am however a supporter of
Sanders. I see him as the most likely candidate to work for the people,
the most likely to effect positive change. So why should BLM protestors
target Sanders?
As I see it, there's two reasons. The
first, that it might have been a calculated move to discredit a
candidate that some people are afraid of. The second, if you'll allow me
to take off my tinfoil hat from the first is the more likely scenario:
Bernie is more likely to listen than any other candidate. He's more
likely to not only listen, but take action in a meaningful way. It's a
risk, assuredly. On the one hand this move has the real potential to
alienate a lot of people who support the cause of the #BlackLivesMatter
movement. It runs the risk of causing the one great hope in the
candidacy to turn completely against them.
In a way,
this was people holding the candidates feet to the fire. Challenging him
to put up or shut up, if he really cares so much for the people, let
him prove it. The problem comes after, really. When you further chide
him with #BowDownBernie hashtags and the like, that's problematic if not
downright childish. If you want him to speak on a particular subject,
you have to then let him speak.
So, to say that I am of
a divided mind on the subject would be an understatement, but in
essence: I think they've handled the situation somewhat poorly. I think
they had every right to call him out, to demand he make a stance on the
subject. The only way to have better candidates is demand better of
them, expecting them to do better out of the goodness of their hearts is
naive at best.
Being a Good Ally
I still
support Sanders, that doesn't give him a pass. The events in Seattle
present a difficult situation for white liberal allies of the BLM
movement. For many this may represent a crisis of conviction, is BLM bad
for calling out Bernie? Is Bernie bad for not speaking to the BLM
movement more openly, earlier in his bid? No, and no basically. But I
understand the conflict.
My initial reaction after the
first incident at the NetRoots Nation event was indignant, I'll admit.
But I bit my tongue. For those that know me personally, you can imagine I
have to bite a bit harder than most to keep the words from spilling
out. But hold my tongue I did, because I needed time to really think
about the subject. I needed to give myself some space to consider the
event objectively. Whereas some of my fellow progressive turned sadly to
Kanye Memes, to which I found myself responding with Piccard Face Palm
memes. Because that is how political debate on grave issues is carried
out in 2015.
My friend Dr. Kelly Jennings had the best advice I could think of in this situation, "
when
I don't know what the right action is, I think the best thing I can do
is to shut up and listen to those who are directly involved. Since I'm not part of the group that is being shot down on the streets, in this case, I'm shutting up and listening." It
made me laugh when I first read it, because of all of the people I know
Dr Jennings is by far the least likely to be quiet on matters of social
justice, civil rights, etc. In all seriousness though, she's right.
It's hard, because what we feel in response to these protests is a
complex set of emotions and being quiet, absorbing the message. And
giving it serious thought is difficult, it's an uncomfortable place to
be. And the initial urge is to defend our candidate, how dare they?! For
me, it was important to understand that if I were to go shouting my
harumphs from the rooftops I'd not actually be defending my candidate,
I'd be defending my choice in candidate.
But still, why Bernie?!
Having
taken the time, I've come to the conclusion that Sanders was really the
only logical option for such a direct action. Why you ask? Let's look
at the alternatives. First, there's our current president, Obama is a
strong contender. Not only is he already in a position to make a
meaningful effort toward the goals of the BLM movement as he is already
president, he's also black himself. Trouble is, he can't blow his nose
without Republicans decrying his use of Kleenex as un American. So,
unless your goal is to make Republicans look more racist he's not a good
option.
Besides, Obama's on the way out of office. The
efforts are best made addressing the next president. At this early
stage of the process it's impossible to know who will be elected, it is
however possible to find the one most likely to by sympathetic to the
cause and to work toward positive change. On the twenty kids and
counting side of the isle there's not much sympathy, so the Republicans
are out. O'Malley, does anyone besides him think he has a fart in the
wind's chance of winning? Good, moving on...
That leaves Hillary and Bernie.
Sanders
has provided his bona fides, he walked with MLK. He was arrested for
protesting segregation, etc. So, at face value he definitely seems
sympathetic to the cause. And unlike Clinton and O'Malley he has yet to
utter the "all lives matter" line, seriously stop it with that phrase.
So, if I were making a case for someone to get talking about the issue,
it'd be Sanders. The trouble is, how to do it?
Reaching
him through social media is unreliable, as busy as the candidates are
they almost certainly don't even look at their official Twitter pages.
Let alone have time to read the thousands of messages they receive there
daily. No, the most reliable way to reach him would be in person. But
we've already touched on how busy all of the candidates are with being
candidates (seriously it's a full time job, but the pay is nice). But
assuming you do manage to get some facetime with him, is his assurance
face to face enough?
So, the action taken by these
protesters got the message out to Bernie in a way he can't ignore. He
can't pretend he's never heard of you. He has absolutely zero plausible
deniability in this scenario, and that's what every candidate needs. And
since then he has appeared to broach the subject. I'm still
disappointed in him, I expect better of him. And from the standpoint of
someone who fully intends to vote for him, he's blown a serious
opportunity to be the statesman I believe him capable of being as was
pointed out in
this article
for the Nation. I'm still disappointed in Obama for the way he handled
questions about decriminalizing marijuana, doesn't mean I'm less a
supporter. Just means I'm not a fan. And that's a good thing.
Regards,
K