.....a constituency block to be won. And for progressive to think that they are misses the point. And for those that think they should be a constituency block, you are essentially saying BLM should become apart of the system we so abhor.
I remember the same charges leveled at OWS. People were saying "why don't they run candidates for the democratic party", or "why don't they support candidate XYZ". And OWS pushed backed saying they wanted systemic changes, not just be another vote at the democratic convention.
BLM tactics seem outrageous, only because some progressive have forgotten what real protest looks like. We have gotten comfortable in our politicking. The same thing happen to the Pro-Choice movement. After SCOTUS ruled a women's right to choose was a right, we got comfortable, but the right wing did not (ever constantly throwing arrows until a crack in the armor formed). Ask the african americans, who sat at food counters and were hit, and spat upon. Ask the ones who were mauled by dogs, and injured by high-pressured water hoses about what protest looks like. All BLM did was disrupt an event, that was not even a Bernie Sanders rally.
And please do not reply to my diary with the "...he marched with MLK...", or "why don't they protest Hillary..".
First, MLK provided a safe foundational space for white progressives to speak on the issue of race. But MLK intended for there to be growth in the movement. But after his death a lot progressives did not feel comfortable speaking on the issue of race with the boldness that MLK's space allowed in the past. As a result you start getting the "pretty language" when talking about race, usually couched under the economic umbrella. While there is some overlap, not every racial issue has a economical component.
Second, the charge "...why don't they protest Hillary.." is such a childish charge. It's a tit-for-tat kind of mind set. Part of the reason why Bernie is being protested is because he is more accessible. And that is a good thing. And if the primary were held today, I would be voting for Bernie. Hillary is not being protested because she is being quite selective in where she goes. Having a $2000+ plate fundraiser, I'm guessing most BLM activists wouldn't even have the money to attend in order to protest. And these venues tend to be highly secured. And Bernie did vote for the Clinton crime bill in 90's. So there is room for growth, or at the very least, room for discussion.
Again, MLK intended for there to be growth. What worked in in 1960's has to be tweak and must have relevance for today. Let's face it, the Democratic party has been getting away with going through a checklist:
- Attend the NAACP convention. Check!
- Attend Urban League convention. Check!
- Attend graduation ceremonies at a couple of HBCUs. Check!
That's not enough!!!!!!!!!
Especially, since a lot of black youth are funneled right to jail instead of college.
And while writing this, I was watching Melissa Harris-Perry, where she showed a segment in which she asked Rep. John Lewis, what he thought about BLM. Lewis said he was happy to see BLM "getting in the way" and hope that other protest org would "get in the way". Take it from a man who knows what true protest is and has the scars to prove it. That's not to say that is has reached that level, but to say because two people disrupted Bernie speaking at an event means the sky is falling is a bit much. And what happens when, and if, Bernie gets the nomination. If Bernie supporters can't handle a little pressure now, we are going to be slaughtered by the Republicans.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.