Her heart's in the right place but she's spinning her wheels about an issue of which Americans are already aware. Get off the street and do something constructive about it.

Again, the lack of direction or tangible things, though, that we can do. She knows this, too, and perhaps is at a loss for what else she can do.

As for what she hopes to achieve, Willis isn't sure. She just knows she wants "action."

Thanks for sharing this.

I think part of the action is in letting our black brothers and sisters know that we hear them. That we are really listening.

Sadly, I think a lot of people have decided they're not going to listen.

As an aside, I think the coopting of "Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter" is a mistake. Of course all lives matter. That's not the point, and IMO it effectively extinguishes the voice of people who long to have their cry heard and understood.

Empathy. Compassion. A willingness to open our minds and hearts. We need more of these things.

I was in L.A. the day of the Dallas shootings. I got in an elevator with a black family-and I could sense their discomfort, me being a middle aged white woman. I actually felt bad that they were deferring to me-they had no reason to do so. We got off on the same floor and I looked them all in the eye, smiled and wished them a good day. The young man, especially, seemed a bit taken aback. I really hoped that they didn't feel I was condescending to them, but that I was treating them as the fellow human beings they were.

The bottom line is this statement I read "The fact that humanity has to clarify that any lives matter, should be concern enough."

aktillery, I wish I could like that statement 100 times. That is it!

'"The fact that humanity has to clarify that any lives matter, should be concern enough."

I think this is what Beagles was getting at in the other thread (where she was shot down).

Stop categorizing people!

"Stop categorizing people!"

We need to figure out when we teach this and stop it before it happens....

People should stop categorizing themselves as well as others.

Wondering about the latest talking point I am seeing/ hearing about 'stop dividing, stop categorizing people'. Is it just a new way of trying to demonize, minimize, sidestep calls for addressing & remedying the inherent racism that underpins so much of American life?

IOW, to me, it seems similar to the coded language used back in the day to argue against integration & civil rights.

After hearing the same words from the stage of the Republican Convention last night, I'm wondering...?

Actually, it's arguing against segregation and alienation. "I am this, you will never understand what that's like,because you are that." Well, maybe I wont,but you will never understand what it's like to be me either. Perhaps we can acknowledge that and try to get to know each other???? Or is that not possible,because you have put this barrier up based solely on the way we were born? I am more than just my race. I am more than my gender. I am more than my age. I am more than my weight. So are you. So is everyone else. I don't define myself by such standards alone,and contrary to some individuals beliefs,don't define others on sight by such standards either. I am me first. I am not a white woman first. I am me. A wise man once said something about judging people not of the color of their skin,but their character. Hmmmmmm.....gee what was that guys name again? I don't think it was Donald trump.....

This categorizing of ourselves and others and banding together against one another that is going on now is not helping race relations.

Whether people like it or not, whites owe it to their fellow black Americans to listen to them. Listen. Hear them NOW. Hear and at least try to process it - even if you can't quite understand it. It's high time. It's long, long overdue.

Don't like the thought that some are "owed" something?

Too bad. That's the reality.

It’s not about not working for equal rights, it’s about the perpetual continuation of segregating people.

Perhaps it's just a more constructive way of
looking at things? If you want people to be color and race blind, stop constantly
focusing on those things and stop screaming in people's faces. It's
counterproductive, builds hostility, resentment and divisiveness between people. As Beagles was
trying to point out in another thread, it’s a way to frame things - work for equal rights for
all, not this group or that group. Eye on the ball, not for example, skin
color.

If you want to stop it, stop perpetuating it. Particularly with all the arguing and hostility and insults. You are doing people no favors by representing them in that way.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/201001/martin-luther-king-jr-the-dream-and-the-data

Third, character strengths - at least as we have measured them - often show remarkably similar profiles across different groups of people. The same sorts of strengths are typically high - those that connect people to one another - and other sorts of strengths are also typically low - those that entail temperance and self-control. We have shown this similarity across different nations of the world, across red states and blue states, as well as across ethnic groups in the United States. Perhaps Dr. King's dream would be realized if we choose to look at actual people and not the demographic groups in which we so conveniently and carelessly place them.

Let's start with voting rights. Let's make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote instead of putting obstacles in their way, as Republicans have done in several swing states to limit the black vote.

I am all for citizens voting in the area they reside. How does one verify, if not by photo or other state sanctioned ID that:

1. You have the right to vote,

2. You are who you are,

3. You are not voting twice?

I lived in Chicago at one time (vote early, vote often). I saw 1st hand voter fraud. (Voting in multiple precincts, ballot boxes near full when the polls opened, voter lists that showed voting AFTER death, students voting absentee in home state and in Chicago the day of election, and other items.) Made me a believer in voter registration and Photo ID.

You now need ID to open a checking or savings account or to get a loan. You need it for so many things in life -- why is getting a state sanctioned photo ID (or other state sanctioned ID) an obstacle?

Ida,

If whites owe that to black people,what do they owe us? See? Us and them. Catergorized,seperate.One GROUP does not owe another because they were born different. People should have the courtesy to listen and hear and try to understand other peoples personal points of view. It's not exclusive to one group.

I am not going to feel guilty for being born white. I do not feel sorry for you if you were not. I do not feel guilty for slavery. It was disgusting,yes. But I had no hand in it,and the black community of today does not endure it. To say they do is to minimize and trivialize the sufferings of those that did. To say that because I share a racial identity with slave owners, I am responsible is ridiculous. To say that because black people share a racial identity with slaves,they suffer the same as the ACTUAL people who were forced into slavery is also,ridiculous. People were enslaving each other all over the world at one time. It was always abhorrable. It's not something perpetrated only by white people against black people in America. Right now,at this moment,slavery is going on,in the form of human trafficking. All over the world,all over America.But people are worried about how much melanin you were born with or without.

I am white. SO is black. I am a woman. He is a man. We will never understand what it is to be the other. All that can be done is to understand each others individual views. I cannot speak for all white people or all women. That's absurd. He cannot speak for all black people or all men. Individuals. People. That's who needs to he heard. Not mobs that gather and proclaim the truth for the whole of "their people" no matter what group it is. I owe it to people to listen and understand. All people. I owe it to them because I am also a person who wants to be heard and understood,not because of some past injustice against people who are long gone,and if I expect it,I should give it. To group people together into one is to stereotype. To take away one individuality in favor of grouping them together is demeaning, and doing the exact opposite of what is really needed.

I didn't say getting a photo ID is an obstacle. There are other ways they've tried to disenfranchise blacks, and those cases have gone to the Supreme Court.

We vote by mail in Oregon. You register by party or independent. Your signature is on record. They could check your photo at registration but I don't think they do in Oregon. You get your ballot about two weeks before the election and can mail it or put it in a drop box at any time. No waiting in six-hour lines on election day.

Amylou, where did I say you were responsible for slavery? That's a stretch of your own invention that has nothing to do with my words.

I'll say it again, one more time: We owe it to our black brothers and sisters to listen to what they are saying. I can't imagine why anyone with a shred of compassion would find that to be such an abhorrent and objectionable proposition.

loonlakelaborcamp, people voted for decades without photo ID and with limited fraud. I am sympathetic to older folks who have never needed a photo ID (the only reason my mom obtained one was for air travel; she's had her bank account with the same bank for decades, and used her Medicare card to ride the bus/El). Here in NJ, to get a driver's license, one can use a set of artifacts to verify identity, totaling 6 points: birth certificate, social security card, bank statement, utility bill, etc. A similar system could be in place for voter registration. Also, using a similar system, if you meet the requirements for a license, then you should also be able to register to vote. The combination of requiring people (many of whom have voted for decades) to get a government-sanctioned photo ID, and then closing down or limiting the locations where you can get such an ID, is voter suppression.

The "voting twice" issue is a function of the board of elections. Here, I have to sign a book next to an image of my signature from my voter registration card AND I also have to sign a numbered slip before entering the voting booth (we don't use paper).

You all should read about some of the tricks Republicans have used to suppress voting. They scream Constitutional rights but then do whatever they can to take away the right to vote. That's a big reason why they don't have my respect.

Ida, WE do not owe THEM anymore than THEY owe US. Every individual PERSON deserves to be listened to and understood. Lets all listen to what each individual person has experienced,why they think they they experienced it and compare to why we think they experienced it. Different views on the same thing can open minds,or close them tighter. Again,that's an individual thing. White,black,hispanic,asian,whatever. Everyone. Your proposal wasn't abhorrent, as you say,it was incomplete. Your non-black guilt is showing. It is overshadowing your obviously compassionate and admirable intentions. To say they are ,as a group,OWED something that others aren't because of their skin is condescending to them as individuals. I owe it to you to listen and try to understand your point if view,because I wish you would do the same for me,and because you are a person,with thoughts,feelings and values of your own. Because of who you are,not what you are or what group you identify with.

"Wondering about the latest talking point I am seeing/ hearing about 'stop dividing, stop categorizing people'. Is it just a new way of trying to demonize, minimize, sidestep calls for addressing & remedying the inherent racism that underpins so much of American life?

IOW, to me, it seems similar to the coded language used back in the day to argue against integration & civil rights. "

---------------------------------------------

Linked is an excellent paper that came out of Princeton. It's an interesting and progressive read. It is long. So here are some excerpts to pique interest in the study and analyses.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/race-relations-diversifying-nation

Race Relations in a Diversifying Nation

…

Our prescriptive lessons emerge from those conclusions. We start from the
premise that the first of the three pathways outlined above – that of pluralism
and porous boundaries among groups – is the most desirable. Based on the
evidence outlined below, we will seek to persuade readers that the best way to
achieve intergroup pluralism is to develop coalitions around issues other than
racial and ethnic concerns. Fighting against discrimination will and
should remain among the goals of a multiracial coalition, but it should
probably not be at the forefront of such a coalition’s political agenda.

To put the point more aphoristically, both survey and case study
evidence suggests that the more a multiracial coalition focuses directly on
issues of racial and ethnic equality, the less stable it will be and the
more likely it will be to fragment into competitive factions. ***Conversely,
the same evidence shows that the more a multiracial coalition focuses on issues
that are not ostensibly
about race, the greater its chance of persistence and success.*** These
results obtain because most of the time, issues of racial and ethnic equality
come to have a zero-sum quality among people of color at least as
often as between people of color and European
Americans. In contrast, issues that focus on economic needs, community
improvement, or family policies (to pick a few examples) have at least the
potential to benefit a wide range of people of all racial and ethnic
identities, thereby generating more positive-sum games and cutting across racial
and ethnic divides. (boldemphases mine)

…

Conclusion

Los Angeles holds
important lessons for African Americans seeking to make common cause with
people of color and liberal whites in other cities. The Bradley coalition
mobilized around two unifying interests with deep ideological resonance:
antidiscrimination reform and political inclusion. Antiracist political reforms
carried unimpeachable moral force and ringing social relevance, and political
incorporation was an urgent goal for a variety of Angelenos. Today,
political actors must identify equally compelling sites of convergence in order
to build new political capital and more complex coalitions. But the sites
have shifted and strategies must be updated.

As the survey data show, antidiscrimination goals are no longer the most stable
arena for making common cause across racial and ethnic groups.
Affirmative action and business set-asides are weighed down with symbolic
meaning, some of which is negative to potential allies ((Hochschild 1998)). In
addition, the groups disagree on the degree to which they and others suffer
from discrimination and therefore disagree on the urgency of measures to end
it.

The pursuit of inclusion among decision-makers may be equally unpromising as an
arena for building alliances, unless blacks can refrain from guarding their
political gains against encroachment. And both the survey data and the
experience in New York suggest how difficult it will be for African Americans
to set aside their (arguably correct) conviction of uniquely harmful
circumstances in order to make room for new immigrants.

(continued from above)

At this writing, conservatives have shown more skill in finding an alternative unifying formulation than have liberals. “In the Establishment Coalition, the aggressive recruitment and the inclusion of racial minorities can be seen as the defining difference between the conservative coalitions forged by Riordan and the previous conservative coalitions in Los Angeles. This might be precisely why Riordan’s coalition will prove to be more successful and durable than its predecessors” ((Park 1996): 165). We see no reason to modify this comment much for New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, or elsewhere.

Nevertheless, most blacks do share common interests and values with many Hispanics, some Asian Americans, and some whites that could provide the basis for new coalitions of the left. For one thing, political incorporation remains incomplete; the history of Los Angeles shows that it is possible to redistrict in a way that does not tear a progressive coalition apart, and the survey data show at least some concern on the part of each group for the political status of the others. In addition, many blacks remain poor, and their interests coincide with those of many nonwhite immigrants and poor whites. And for once, the survey data reinforce the more analytic argument about interests since they show considerable agreement on the need for redistributive policies. So the traditional grounds for interracial alliances have not disappeared, even if they have not shown much vigor recently.

If economic interests or other shared goals are to be the basis of new progressive coalitions, our evidence indicates that at least four conditions must obtain:

· Where possible, racial issues should not be the center of discussion and action; the focus should instead be on shared substantive policy and political goals such as jobs in the primary sector, better schooling, nonbrutal crime control, neighborhood development, immigrant incorporation, and decent housing.

· When attention to race is deemed desirable or essential, everything possible should be done to avoid zero-sum conflicts over processes (such as redistricting and the selection of candidates) and outcomes (such as affirmative action or the funding of particular programs).

· African Americans need to pay more attention to civil rights issues of concern to immigrants such as welfare rights, deportation, and immigration restrictions. They also need to recognize that other groups have the same intense desire for descriptive representation that they themselves have evinced.

· Latinos, Asian Americans, and sympathetic whites, in return, need to accept that blacks’ history of enslavement and their continued suffering from poverty and racial discrimination are qualitatively different from the history of all voluntary immigrant groups, and perhaps require distinct treatment as a consequence.

We are not calling for African Americans to suppress concerns about racial issues. Nor should they abandon their pursuit of remedies for discrimination, especially for poor blacks who have few resources of their own with which to fight on any issue. We are arguing that a focus on ending racial discrimination per se is not the best staging ground for seeking alliances with other peoples of color or potentially sympathetic whites. Instead, African Americans would do well to consider that engaging other groups in support of antidiscrimination goals will most likely occur in the pursuit of policy goals that are not ostensibly about race.

…

How to control crime without violating individuals’ rights is a question that could bring together people of various racial and ethnic groups, including whites, in support of antidiscrimination measures. But as with welfare, the initial policy focus should not be race, per se, but rather a shared interest in the delivery of a crucial and delicate public service in central cities.

Improving public education, ensuring health care, finding homes for children without stable families, providing jobs once the economy slows– all of these issues have an obvious racial dimension, but need not be approached through a framework of fighting racial discrimination. To the degree that African American leaders can find ways to bring others into a coalition that focuses on the problems, rather than on the identities of the coalition members, to that degree they need not choose between fighting bias and finding allies.

All of these things are easier said than done, and the prescription we just gave has historically proven almost impossible to sustain for long periods of time. Analytically, we are proposing that politicians and policy actors seek to create the first of our three models of diversity – that is, to promote interactive pluralism rather than group separation or black exceptionalism. Pluralism need not, and probably should not, imply colorblindness or unrooted individualism, as it has done in the past. It does imply that groups will come together around particular issues and perhaps separate into new groupings for other issues; the key point is that the content of issue disputes, not ethnicity or race, will determine the coalitional patterns.

(bold emphases mine)

(continued)

http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/race-relations-diversifying-nation

Race Relations in a Diversifying Nation

This might be precisely why Riordan’s coalition will prove to be more successful and durable than its predecessors

Riordan hasn't been mayor since July 1, 2001, and he was the last conservative/Republican to be elected.

The three mayors since then have not been conservatives, and one, Antonio Villaraigosa, was the first Latino to be elected since 1870.

I would suggest that the report is seriously out of date as far as Los Angeles is concerned.

Yes it is research from 1999. But it is about concepts that have been under discussion here, of what is productive and what isn't - of focusing on race and discrimination as a means to an end. It is counterproductive.

It was co-authored by Jennifer Hochschild, H.L. Jayne Professor of Government, Professor of African and African American Studies, and Harvard College Professor. She previously taught at Duke, Columbia and Princeton.

The conservative Riordan model lauded by the paper no longer exists - did not survive. So I am not so sure that offers much of an example.

Conservatives in California went the divisive route about 20 years ago, and now find themselves shut out of any state-wide office in our minority majority state. They are also a minority party in the legislature in Sacramento. Demographics changed, and a new generation was raised in a multicultural society.

As in the state, minorities in Los Angeles are now a force of their own, and conservatives like Riordan find themselves with much less power and influence.

Nancy, you seem focused on party. I don't find any information on the 'Riordan model' they reference to see exactly what it was or, more importantly, why it failed, as you say, but I don't think their inclusion of it sums up anything or was intended to do so.

My point was that there is, in fact, research backing the idea that focusing on the issues rather than on groups and inequalities/discrimination has proven to be more effective. Please see the bolded areas of the excerpts above if nothing else.

I'm not sure what your point is or what you are objecting to.

'both survey and case study evidence suggests that the more a multiracial coalition focuses directly on issues of racial and ethnic equality, the less stable it will be and the more likely it will be to fragment into competitive factions. Conversely, the same evidence shows that the more a multiracial coalition focuses on issues that are not ostensibly about race, the greater its chance of persistence and success."