This might be a reflection of my being white, but I don't particularly care whether someone I criticize is black, white, brown, yellow, red, or any other ridiculously named shade that does not very accurately describe who we are as people. Almost every member of Congress, no matter what race, is at least a little bit corrupted by the process by which he or she got to Congress. There are some exceptions, Cynthia McKinney being a major one, but then she's not in Congress anymore because she didn't make the compromises that Rep. Conyers makes.

Much of the African-American commentary on this and other issues has been disconcerting to me because it doesn't seem to matter to some commentators what the subject of the protest is; all that seems to matter is that white people are criticizing a black person. Are we really that simplistic in our thought that we assume any white person who criticizes a black person is acting upon racism rather than a sense of injustice? That is not to say that most white people aren't racist. I very much believe that most white adults in this country are racist or at least that we allow racism to affect how we see the world, and I include myself in this category. But that doesn't mean it affects every aspect of how I see the world.

This probably sounds racist, but I think it's time to move beyond identity-based politics and to move towards issue-based politics. Reparations, racism, redlining, and police brutality are all issues that I care about and that I'm willing to speak out about. That means speaking out against those who disagree with me, whether they are black or white. I have absolutely no problem criticizing an African-American leader, whether he or she is popular, and I would suggest the solution to these problems is to speak truth to power, no matter what color the power is.

What other government is responsible for more deaths and imprisonments of innocent people? What other government openly conducts torture

HUH?

Are you serious?

OK. Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Saddam's Iraq are three previous examples of regimes that caused more of these things by far. Currently, Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Libya, China, North Korea, Somalia, come to mind. There are plenty of others.

HOWEVER, YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE ARTICLE ON WHICH YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMMENTING ON HERE.

This brilliant piece is correct on so many points and at so many levels:

We all need to heed the conclusion and use that as our guiding principle. Thanks to Rev, Yearwood for making these words.

I heard Rev. Yearwood speak at a rally this past year, and it brought tears to my eyes, as a White man I would follow this guy to the gates of hell. This is one of the best articles I have EVER seen on Common Dreams. I really hope our progressive movement can de-segregate before it's too late. Impeach Bush and Cheney. Fund Bridges, not Wars!

Notice Yearwood's use of the single word "progressive" non-diluted by "left" and "liberal"; notice his clarity on issues as separate from race in reference to Mr. Conyers; notice his reference to Mr. Conyers AND White progressives in the "friend" category; notice the largest sense of "we" and "our" is the expansive, large category of the "progressive movement" which includes many identities, racial and otherwise. Everything about this article is unifying and respectful of the various factions of the progressive community and its progressive movement. This is a very helpful article, for his complaints about progressive fragmentation are wedded to a unifying attitude of mutual respect.

There are not separate "races" within the species Homo sapiens. There are only various ethnic groups. Every person on the face of the Earth is related in the same sense that a father, son, mother, sister and brother are related. The only race of people on the planet is the Human Race.
Any and all of the "racial" distinctions that exist in any language are nothing more than political memes created for the purpose of sowing discord and divisiveness which aids in the process of oppression.

Rev. Yearwood is leading the way on how to bring the various movements together and make one movement: a movement of the people, by the people, and for the people. We all must find common ground and support one another's cause because at heart all of our causes are against the same thing: racial and economic justice. The foreign policy of the US has always been an elitist one, one of white culture's predominance over the resources of people of color. Now that this issue had bled into the white middle class where being white is not enough but being rich is the dividing line, white working class people must stand with our brothers and sisters of all races.

I am proud that Rev. Yearwood is a member of the Advisory Board of Progressive Democrats of America, and I believe that if we all rally behind and strengthen PDA and are ever inclusive in our search for justice and join with organizations outside the Dem Party as one, we can build a movement that the powers to be will see is united, full of conviction, and unrelenting in pushing the interests of common folk over the moneyed and powerful corporatocracy that now rules our policies,

Whew! I guess I got a little excited there. The Rev. has a way of doing that to people, oh yeah.
Peace. www.pdamerica.org

I agree PG Henry. Loud applause for Rev. Yearwood, it's a "racy" topic but he handled it well; you're moving up the ranks towards Moyers territory my friend. This article nailed it and illustrates frustrations of trying to ally various factions, oops groups of citizens. Immigration marches, Gay Marches, Black Justice marches, Labor Marches, Womens Rights Marches, etc, but the bottom line, we're Americans seeking progress and unity for the common good. But that's life of a progressive, much diversity, all of us marching to a different drum. We don't follow the script blindly unlike the GOP indoctrinated trolls. Again, hat's off Rev. Yearwood, I hear ya brother loud and clear out here on the Left Coast, red county, blue state. If W is a "uniter not a divider", then let's unite and impeach now.

Escravo:

The latte drinking cliche is a cheap shot and runs contrary to the tone and specifics of this article, which is about effective collective action by and among progressives in quite specific ways.

As a matter of PS to all: we should closely look at Rev. Yearwood's reminder about reparations for the Middle Passage, US slavery, the formal apartheid system known as "Jim Crow" segregation and the de facto racial apartheid that continues to this day in the US.

Reparations is not a "race," issue, but a fundamental matter of justice and rights that is at the heart of what we call "the American Experience."

Here is a link to Part I of this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2794/

Aside from the contentious comments comparing him to Martin Luther King which were agreeably uncalled for, I don't see what the issue of impeachment has anything to do with race.

It was bad to draw the correlation, but until we get a substantial answer for why war criminals are not be held accountable, why a war that has cost 100s of thousands of lives and turned an entire country into chaos, has drained a budget surplus into a massive debt with large sums of that money going to former company's owners in our own executive branch whether through weapons or privatized military support, Conyers with many other Dems (Pelosi) are simply part of the problem as apposed to the solution.

Katrina, police violence, are all separate although critically important issues.

Yearwoods comments are well-taken, however; many black spokespersons for black freedom are not progressives like Rev. Yearwood. Many are quite conservative.

Six years ago, here in Allegheny county the two black county board members and our black city councilpersons, all claiming to speak for the black community, cast the decisive votes to to shoot-down years of effort to get a living wage ordinance passed. They claimed that a living wage (only for govt contractors and services, mind you) was against black peoples interest since it hurt business and therefore jobs - i.e the same argument white right-wingers and "libertarians" give. Sorry, but I often cannot buy the black politician's and especially the "black entrepeneurs" claim that they represent black working peoples interests.

White activists are fully willing to, and do, work with black activists, it is their often self-serving, self-appointed leaders that cause division.

Many thanks to Rev. Yearwood. Much as I yearn for corroboration and consolation, he honors me with his expectations that I, too, will think as large and as outwardly as he does, and that I too will rise to take as much responsibility as is necessary. Both of his articles are hard and true, requiring hard and true inquiry and thought and action.

I notice that many of those in violent disagreement with John Conyers demonstrate the same historical disregard for African Americans that Rev. Yearwood reminds us of. It's the same old thing, time and again.

Personally, I think that if you don't understand the history of African Americans in the United States, then you don't really understand this country at all. If you don't have decent respect for the protracted, bloody, on-going struggle that started more than a hundred years before the Civil Rights Movement and has lasted longer, then you might be a racist. This kind of ignorance and disrespect makes it harder to move forward and unite anybody, no matter how much you want it or how important you are convinced it is.

When Japanese Americans went after redress for those of us who had been denied due process and interned in concentration camps during WWII, African Americans, both the grassroots and in Congress, were among our earliest and staunchest allies, partly because they realized that it was a fundamental issue of equality and justice, but also because we respected them and supported them in their own struggles.

We had Japanese Americans in Congress who played pivotal roles in our struggle, but with whom we also had some disagreements. We pushed them, but we realized that they, as people of color, were also under pressure from racists, and it made no sense politically to dismiss them out of hand as some people want to dismiss John Conyers. We put pressure on them, but we also helped them do the right thing by rallying as much mass support as we could for what we wanted them to do. It turns out that they wanted to do it, too.

Show respect. Wage principled struggle. Don't turn natural allies into enemies. Rally mass support so that we're not asking them to go out and commit political suicide. Of course our leaders should lead, but the people can lead, too.

I've often wondered whether the wedge isn't deliberately incited. There are people in both camps who seem only to be exacerbating things.

There are many social divisions (male vs. female), age (young vs. old), labor specialization, tribe or clan, race/color, religion/creed, and national identity.

In an era in which the world's elite -- by their actions -- do not demonstrate a patriotic commitment to a particular country, but rather see the world in spherical/global terms, the peoples of the world continue to allow themselves to be divided by arbitrary criteria to their own folly and detriment.

The only division I see is powerful vs. powerless. I think it's long past time we, like the super-rich, cast off the little things that divide us.

And I think it's happening on its own. Poor people of different groups are tossed together by virtue of being poor, they're intermingling, they have similar economic concerns, and the number is growing -- former middle-class members among their ranks.

I'm not even sure what middle-class ever meant in America. "ability to borrow" and perhaps not much more, in an era in which so few have had this little equity since the Great Depression.

While blacks can point to oppression by powerful whites, so can whites (to some degree). They've dealt with a thousand years of despicable dark ages, landless serfdom and indentured servitude.

I love how people act as if all white liberals are pampered, spoiled, and insulated. I've never been that way. I learned long ago that the Right has nothing to offer me or most most other Americans. I saw how their policies affected my family and thusly my way of life in a negative way.

At the same time though, I find I am often alienated by the left also. I didn't finish college. I work in a blue-collar job. I've never been well-off. I don't take kindly to being made out to be culpable in all sorts of atrocities and oppression simply because of my shade of skin as well as my sexual organs.

What? My skin is colorless?

And while America has it's historical underbelly (as does every nation), I don't feel that it should be solely defined by it either. Talk about fatalism. Yes, America has huge stains on her linen. People in power throughout history have been screwing over damn near everyone at some point.

GASP! I actually have known black people! My high school was predominantly black! I survived. :) And guess what? While my experiences were benign for the most part, I also found that black people were as bigoted, chauvanistic, materialistic, homophobic, intolerant, misinformed, and apathetic as anyone else. As were Asians and everyone else you can think of.

I think the lack of blacks participating at environmental rallies shows again that they're no different than anyone else. What is the Green movement but a subculture? Hell, what is the Left anymore than a subculture. That's not to belittle progressive ideas, but dammit, the Left doesn't engage enough people, period, let alone black people.

The Left SHOULD be a huge tent. Everyone, unless they are wealthy has the universe to gain from standing on that side of the fence. Our side, and I'll consider myself a member of the club whether I'm wanted or not. I may not be standing in the rain holding a sign, but I vote, and I feel that I back the right horses. And I support reparations also. So guess who I'm voting for...

"Truth be told, most minorities do not feel comfortable with Kucinich, not because he is biased, but to him and his followers, our long-standing concerns don't count."

Kuchinich has stated clearly that he supports reparations. He was asked flat out during the Youtube debates, and while the other candidates either said no, dodged the issue, him-hawed around, or just stayed silent, Kuchinich said yes.

Who do minorities feel "comfortable" with then? The only two I feel that way about are Kuchinich and Gravel. Everyone else is Diet-Right or Do-Nothing to me. Kuchinich has plans also.

http://www2.kucinich.us/issues

I will also say that I am profoundly disappointed with ANYONE in power who doesn't AT THE VERY LEAST want Bush to be impeached. In a just world, Dubbya would be executed for treason.

In the middle 60s, as the Viet War protests were growing, the civil rights movement was growing too, under the inspiration of MLK. Yet for the most part the two groups kept themselves separate. Each group thought they had separate goals, and that each would detract from the other if they worked together. Our local peace council (all whites) tried to interest the local Black Power group (all blacks) in joining us in our protest actions, but got nowhere with that.

It wasn't until MLK came roaring out against the war that the two groups found their common ground and began to work together. MLK pointed out that both black and white kids were being drafted and sent off to fight and die in Vietnam in a "war" against people with yet another skin color. That made the two groups sweethearts and we began to protest together for both peace and civil rights. After all, peace and civil rights are the most important common grounds there are.

Every American has a personal interest in a sane and constitutional government, and that is our common ground now. Impeachment is neither a black, white, brown or whatever necessity - it's an American necessity and that's our common ground right now. We can settle the lesser things later.

Dear Rev,

We need a movement that is truly inclusive. All great ideas need to come together in peace. This is what I envision as a Lovolution.

Doctress Neutopia
www.lovolution.net

I'm a white woman. When I was working with an eclectic group for Kerry's election in '04 that included not only Democrats but Greens, Independents and Republicans there were almost no blacks coming to any of the meetings. We tried some outreach. It was no use.

The extremely wealthy have been practicing divide and conquer since the beginning of recorded history. Workers of all creeds, races, colors and occupation are natural allies.

The rich use any means necessary, racism, media, terrorism, crime, war, patriotism, etc to keep the people apart.

Short unsustainable cooperative periods and altruistic leaders occasionally beat the system and make progress in democracy and human rights.

The Murdochs, Waltons, and other robber barons of the elite work continuously to oppose the people.

BUT, it is not a conspiracy in the classic sense. These people have the same goals and methods and terminal greed. They therefore naturally work as if they were conspiring.

Urthsong-Perhaps part of it is because the activism is focused on and within their own communities?

I mean, everyone has a right to be self-interested in some way. Blacks have a TON of issues facing their communities for sure. Gays have a right to be concerned about issues affecting them, working people, and so on and so on.

We just need to get all of those groups to realize that they have a stake in Progress too. We can be splintered but we can do that underneath that Big Tent.

Another thing people have to keep in mind is that people of all colors are tired. They're overworked. They're distracted by so many things, including often and sadly enough how they're going to pay their bills and eat. They sedate and humor themselves with entertainment and other things. I do it too.

At times I get frustrated with people not doing enough. I get mad at myself for not doing enough.

I wish I could just quit my damn job and say to hell with my horrid employer and become some sort of guerilla, but I can't afford to. Who out there can afford to martyr themselves financially or otherwise? I'm not brawling with a cop just to prove a point. I wouldn't expect a black guy with kids to feed or a woman on welfare to do the same.

Race is a tripwire for sure, but so are issues of class, gender, religion (I can imagine how a poor religious person might feel about certain lefties railing against various faiths), and sexuality. But they don't have to be. There are the issues that affect certain groups (reparations, abortion rights, gay marriage) and then there are the issues that affect us all (the environment, war). We can address them all at the same time. We don't have to say, "oh well look at this first, and then tackle your problems next." Hell we can't afford to. Even those issues that hit certain groups affect others as well. I've said it before, inequality will bring about America's demise.

What do I have to gain from the status quo being maintained? What does anyone aside from the elites for that matter?

Wonderful article , and way past due ... Thank You Rev Yearwood!
As an old activist from the Civil Rights, Anti Viet-Nam and Women's movements I can testify that the white progressives during those times caused nothing but trouble and seemed intent on enhancing the pub strategy of "divide and conquer!"

Yes, wonderful article indeed!

One of the primary difficulties that white people have in understanding other cultures is in being able to see beyond the white 'reference point of reality'.

As white people, from the time we are born, almost all we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, think, and believe is referenced to our own cultural perspective on what constitutes life and reality. And because white people maintain the dominant power structure they do, it is easy to be comfortable in our understanding of reality, which becomes very deadly to other cultures.

The thing that European Americans don't seem to be able to 'get' is that other cultures in the world don't just have some 'differing ideas, customs, etc' but rather experience a different reality. Take the Aboriginal reality of 'dream' where the dream is reality and 'this reality' is a dream, a single but vivid example.

The problem is that we white folks try to understand such things (if we don't dismiss them) from our own reference point. That is the problem. We think our 'reality' is correct in its foundation as the reference point from which to understand other things. White people (all people actually) must learn to entirely suspend their concept of reality and be open to other concepts of what reality is in the first place.

Easier said than done but until we do, we are blind.

As one of those (white) progressives who wrote that Rep. Conyers had shamed himself by his response to the petitioners who came to his office to push him on impeachment, and who said Rosa Parks, whom he hired to work on his staff in Congress, would have been dismayed at his actions in having the protesters immediately removed in cuffs by Capitol police, I fully appreciate Rev. Yearwood's incisive critique of the problem of race in the progressive movement.
As one who fully supports the issues raised by African Americans, I agree that it is critical that the divisions of race on the left be overcome. The labor movement has come the farthest on this, having incorporated people of color fully in most of its units, right up to the leadership, but other parts of the left--the environmental movement, impeachment, anti-war, etc.--have not, and remain overwhelmingly black, despite the fact that the vast majority of African Americans support most of the issues of those parts of the movement. Likewise, while most in the white left intellectually support the demands of African Americans, we aren't there physically when it counts.
There is much work to be done.
That said, Rep. John Conyers is not "just" a ranking member of the Congressional Black Caucus. As chair of the Judiciary Committee, he is a critically powerful representative of ALL Americans, and as such, when he fails in his duty to uphold and defend the constitution, he is fair game for criticism--and indeed must be criticised--especially when his position is so clearly hypocritical given his prior and continued public statements on this administratiion's criminality.
He is no more excempt from criticism because of his past excellent record than is Sen. Kerry, who has been shameful on the Iraq War, but played a noble role in the opposition to the Vietnam War.

DAve Lindorff
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Occidental market society is a virtual 'golem' (of ancient Judaic lore) - a giant with clay feet answering only to its masters. The profit motive is founded in the differential between raw resource and labor and the highest price a product can be sold for. Historically based in using enslavement to sustain that differential, it has morphed into Neo-Liberal capitalism believing in the exclusion of any other alternative. It is itself a slave. Culture within it can be and is different - hence religion and art remain vibrant despite distorted spinoffs.

Our task seems to be to lay down our enslaved condition with all its 'promises'of 'security'. Our differences divide when viewed from a spiritually enslaved condition. Our 'differences' are in fact our histories meeting in time and space and are our greatest treasure. We have been conditioned to reject those histories and differences and thus our own integrity and are paralyzed as a result.

What is the distinction between 'pride' and 'dignity'? One can be proud of an identity, one stands apart and looks at it, it is rendered duplicitous by that viewing of itself. Dignity is ongoing engagement that continues as long as process and content have integrity. It grows and expands and informs in healthy simple being. I'll take dignity over pride any day. Remember Rosa Park's dignity.

Natasha Mayer's image on this site of a 'projection'of a faux movie representation of Moses on the Isreali wall, also in a gesture that alludes to the crucified christ is interpreted by this reader as metaphor for the mechanics and creations of the golem masters. It also seems to speak of the dynamics of false prophecy. Today 'entertainment' equals 'en-train-ment'. The golem rather than being physical is the sphere of human activity corresponding to a spiritually enslaved condition.

Biblical prophesy doesn't tell you what will happen tomorrow at 9am, but rather how to be lovingly 'present' with all the differences, to stand and speak truth to power whatever happens.

As an ancient Islamic poet once noted: If you seek human nature, seek higher. We have also been sold a bill of goods that claims that human nature is base. It is not. It will not be televised for us, dictated for us, divided into pieces for us so that we can be spoon-fed. Human nature is alive and well and breathing a deep long breath with a few desperately grinding growing pains.

Another gem from Islamic culture: The elephant was made to carry heavy loads; the camel to cross the desert; the horse to run swiftly; humans were made to learn. Humility is the spiritual equivalent of potassium - essential for metabolization of nutrients in the body.

We can talk about getting all the spokes of the wheel to the hub. In the process, it seems that we need to remember a quality of the wheel must be the capacity to bear weight while in motion.

Then there is always the old aphorism from the Tao te Ching: The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. An alternative translation is: The journey of a thousand miles starts from where your feet are.

Doris Lessing once wrote: Armies of angels could rise up out of the waves, but if you are looking for a one-eyed giant you could sail right through them without feeling so much as a freshening of the breeze.

Black and blue, strong and true.

WHATEVERYOU SAY: Great analysis.
Iwarrior: Your honesty is a gift to this forum.

Good thoughts..... but

1) I am for impeachment AND reparation AND against racism... these do not have to be be either or issues.

2) The issues are more complex than black & white... not only literally but also figuratively. Consider Powel and Condi Rice .... both are black, but do they represent ANY black interest? Or Gonzo, does he represent any brown interest? No, no and no. It is also about class (power, privilege)... and not to talk about uncle Tom syndrome.

So, as far as I am concerned I look at the issue (after detaching myself from the issue) and look at the issue itself..... what implications does it have on the society (rather than narrowly focusing on its impact on my own self).

Oh well... its just me....

Friends don't let friends sell out. Conyers seems to have quit the black race when he ascended to a position of national leadership. Conyers needs tough love, and he's going to get plenty of it.

Perhaps Conyers and Pelosi believe all they need to do is wait for the 2008 election for the Republicans to be voted out of office. They cannot believe 9/11 was anything more than an AlQaeda attack, and they cannot imagine Cheney/Bush would resort to arranging another such attack to give them the excuse to delare marshall law under their dictatorship. Thus, they believe impeachment would divide the nation and damage Democratic hopes for victory in the next election. I wish they were right, and I hope they are, but......

"The labor movement has come the farthest on this, having incorporated people of color fully in most of its units, right up to the leadership..."

Dave Lindorff:

I think you missed on this one. Labor unions are extremely hierarchal institutions and in the case of the Change to Win federation, are becoming even moreso.

If you look at the AFL-CIO Executive Council, until relatively recently there was a single "Black" spot reserved for the head of the NFL Players Assn, who could get the others tickets.

There are now more minority faces on the Council, but they tend to be in token slots and be political appointees of white males. The Coalition for Black Trade Unionists is pretty much relegated to "Black" issues.

In CTW, the main deciders are Andy Stern of SEIU, Bruce Raynor of UNITE/HERE and (gulp) Jimmy Hoffa Jr.

In the building trades and large industrial unions, the situation is even worse, although there are many creative and interesting things going on at the local and central trade council levels.

Staffs tend to be overwhelmingly white and come from middle class or affluent origins, though women have made strong advances there. Lead staff is almost always white and usually male.

There is an extremely thick glass ceiling in labor that pretty much filters out people of color and women, especially when they are outspoken progressives. "Going along to get along" is one of the prime qualifications for labor leadership and staff advancement, yielding extreme mediocrity.

Like most institutions in our society, labor unions are anti-democratic in structure and history and racist and sexist. That's a real problem, as many on this website note: they have a leading progressive role to play in social change.

But until they come to terms with the realities of structural racism and sexism, they won't.

The Canadians are way ahead of us on this, requiring 50/50 male-female representative ratios at all levels of the Canadian Labour Congress. Also, they have special structures for the dual language/culture of French/English Canada. Like us, they are having a difficult time integrating people of color, but is an explicit part of their overall mission in society to try.

The hope for US unions is that as they attempt to organize more people of color and women, those folks will force fundamental democratic changes on the structures of the movement to push it beyond tokenism. Smash the glass ceiling from below.

There are especially exciting things going on in the SF Bay area, southern Cal and the NYC metro region because of the overwhelming numbers of women and people of color and the workers' centers movement which organizes outside the official labor movement, although in cooperation with it.

But these efforts are geographically confined and pretty new. To early to tell. Other local areas have things going on as well, and US Labor Against the War has done more than anybody to focus on the relationships between class struggle and the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

This fine organization has little influence in the movement overall, however; and like most progressive organizations, it is not clear what their influence on the rank-and-file is. But they continue to do incredibly great work as outspoken labor progressives and should be taken more seriously in the progressive movement and the labor movement. They do the work that makes movements move.

RE: iwarrior - agree w/below post re your openness

Siouxrose August 4th, 2007 10:00 am
"Iwarrior: Your honesty is a gift to this forum."

I was struck by that too.

RE: CRITICIZING CONYERS ON IMPEACHMENT vs. SLIMING HIS PREDOMINANTLY PROGRESSIVE, PRO-AFRICAN AMERICAN RECORD

stepfour August 4th, 2007 10:31 am
"Friends don't let friends sell out. Conyers seems to have quit the black race when he ascended to a position of national leadership."

Stuff it - you're no "friend" of Conyers or "the black race."

Note how this sleazebag gives no evidence to support his libel - that's how mudslingers work.

Anyone interested in the views of one of the founders of the Black Caucus, see Conyers' posts at Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, the Huffington Post, and his blog.

Anyone interested in Conyer's predominantly liberal-progressive voting record, see the "On the Issues" website: http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/John_Conyers.htm

Anyone interested in Conyers' support for progressive and African American issues - as opposed to the right-wing-bought right wing of the congressional Black Caucus - see:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0422-20.htm
"Black Caucus Losing Cohesion," Glen Ford and Peter Gamble, 2005, Black Commentator

Anyone interested in an update on the "massive corporate intervention in Black electoral politics, conceived in rightwing think tanks in the mid-90s," see: Ford, "The Corporate Plan to Crush Black Resistance"
http://www.counterpunch.org/ford08012007.html

RE: CRITICIZING CONYERS ON IMPEACHMENT vs. SLIMING HIS PREDOMINANTLY PROGRESSIVE, PRO-AFRICAN AMERICAN RECORD

stepfour August 4th, 2007 10:31 am
"Friends don't let friends sell out. Conyers seems to have quit the black race when he ascended to a position of national leadership."

Stuff it - you're no "friend" of Conyers.

Note how this sleazebag gives no evidence to support his libel - that's how mudslingers work.

Anyone interested in the views of one of the founders of the Black Caucus, see Conyers' posts at Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, the Huffington Post, and his blog.

Anyone interested in Conyer's predominantly liberal-progressive voting record, see his record on the "On the Issues" website:
http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/John_Conyers.htm

Anyone interested in Conyers' support for progressive and African American issues - as opposed to the right-wing-bought right wing of the congressional Black Caucus - see:

"Black Caucus Losing Cohesion," Glen Ford and Peter Gamble, 2005, Black Commentator
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0422-20.htm

Anyone interested in an update on the "massive corporate intervention in Black electoral politics, conceived in rightwing think tanks in the mid-90s," see: Glen Ford, "The Corporate Plan to Crush Black Resistance" in Counterpunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/ford08012007.html

tj
"Labor unions are extremely hierarchal institutions"

What a crock of !@#$.
I thought unions were supposed to be about democracy.
How can these union "heads" pretend they are doing a good thing.
With the hierarchy, the craperations just need to co-opt one person. What a weakness. And don't go off on some delusional about "hierarchy is only human nature" b.s. We human animals sometimes use hierarchy, we sometimes do not.

The citizens of the USA are hugely disengaged from public discourse or public action, and are intentionally encouraged ( mostly covertly ) to remain so. If the black population ever becomes engaged again, as in the 60s, they could alter this country nearly overnight.

RE: ADDENDUM ON CRITICISM OF CONYERS

Pro-impeachment forces certainly had the right to criticize Conyers' refusal to press impeachment, and his part in having the impeachment demonstrators arrested.

However, I agree that it was a mistake for white activists to frame their criticisms by comparing Conyers to African American political figures, in light of 1) the estrangement (and mutual distrust) of African American and predominantly white progressive movements in the US, and 2) the seeming lack of practical involvement of pro-impeachment, anti-invasion activists David Lindorff and Ray McGovern with African American movements.

In such a situation, the King-Parks comparisons could only come of as impolitic, insensitive, and unearned.

(see, Lindorff – 7/24 'Shame of Conyers' in commondreams and Ray McGovern, 7/25 'Sad Decline of Conyers' in Counterpunch)

At least that seems obvious now - when I first read Lindorff's piece, I didn't bat an eye when he led off with the invidious 'Parks' comparison.

John Conyers is a survivor and will survive this madness.

The so-called progressive movement is just as racist and regressive as any other 'movement.' Indeed, during the run-up to the civil war, white abolitionists 'counseled' Black people to be calm, be patient and don't rattle the collective cage of white America thereby disturbing their comfort level. Fortunately, they were not paid attention to.

John Conyers is the powerful Chairman of a key committee, but he must work with the other leadership within Democrat strategy. Impeachment is not a game, nor is it something to be bandied about cavalierly. Bush was elected and selected and re-elected, therefore, most whites have nothing to say other than they were duped again, a la Nixon and Reagan.

Too often, people who have nothing to say have plenty of space or time within which to say it; look at the McLaughlin Group on PBS, look at Fox on Sunday morning.

John Conyers is a dedicated and resourceful man.

Let him do his thing his way.

Waiguoren has said something very profound: when Black America becomes pissed off and acts, America changes, and everybody benefits, not the least being whites.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the catalyst for white women joining the workforce in numbers unprecedented since WWII. The lifestyle many whites enjoy is directly attributable to Black energy and determination.

Understanding this, many Black people refuse to enhance white lifestyles any further through their actions. The attitude is to let whites develop and mount their own effort. When Black people decide that change must come, believe me, it will. Every time we decided that change was necessary, it happened. Maybe not exactly as we wished, but change did occur - and against significant opposition.

The archdeacon of the revolutionary era, Tommy J, said that a little revolution is a good thing every now and then. Well, Black people are biding time until the time to come together and act, and letting some of the so-called leaders die off or become decrepit or become more irrelevant. Then, the revolution will resume its forward march. The Black Revolution isn't a thunder and lightening or rocket's glare scenario: it's known as slow-walking. The goal will be achieved in its rightful time regardless of impatience or impediment. After all, this thing began in 1526 when Afro-Spanish slaves refused to return to Spain and forced the conquistadores to leave without them. It will contiue until it is no longer necessary - whenever that may be.

RE: PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK OR CITE A BOOK SUPPORTING THIS VIEW. THANKS.

herbsmith August 4th, 2007 3:55 pm
"during the run-up to the civil war, white abolitionists 'counseled' Black people to be calm, be patient and don't rattle the collective cage of white America"

Before the Civil War, certainly "black abolitionists...were the backbone of the antislavery movement." (Zinn) And African American abolitionism and white abolitionism were not the same.

However, I am not aware of one writer who has CHARACTERIZED the white abolitionist movement - as a whole - as having "'counseled' Black people" not to "rattle the cage of white America" (whatever that means). And I've read a lot of writing on abolitionism, by African Americans and whites.

Kindly provide a link or author supporting this assertion. Advance thanks.

RE: LINDORFF REPLY - NOT GETTING IT? OR NOT ACKNOWLEDGING IT?

Dave Lindorff August 4th, 2007 9:12 am
Mr. Lindorff thanks Rev. Yearwood for his "incisive" comments, then continues: divisions exist between black and white progressive movements, and he wants them to be overcome. But, he continues:
"[t]hat said, Rep. John Conyers is not "just" a ranking member of the Congressional Black Caucus. As chair of the Judiciary Committee, he is a critically powerful representative of ALL Americans, and....is no more excempt from criticism because of his past excellent record than is Sen. Kerry."

Fine. And on that, no doubt, Yearwood and Mr. Lindorff agree. But Lindorff is either avoiding or still oblvivious to Yearwood's declared - if tactfully stated - point: not just that - in Lindorff's words - "it is critical that the divisions of race on the left be overcome," but that Lindorff goofed by bringing in Rosa Parks - and that his gaff is, itself, symptomatic of that division.

Missing or avoiding this point will not heal it.

Can we just get this clown impeached and sent up the river already? Jesus.

"If the black population ever becomes engaged again, as in the 60s, they could alter this country nearly overnight."

And that's just one segment of the population. Now imagine if everyone became engaged.

I keep reading all of these posts that act as if whites and blacks come from different planets or something. Don't we all want the same basic things?

I dunno, maybe I'm the alien. I want reparations for blacks as much as I want free health care and education. I don't want the world to dry up and burn anymore than I want Africa to starve and drown in debt.

Actually, eading these threads and posts makes me realize what an outsider I am in terms of The Left. Again, it's more apparent to me than ever what a little subculture the Left truly is. The Left needs to be more than that. It's not as if the public mostly rejects progressive values. Isn't The Left supposed to be for The People? Don't they/we have the best interests of everyone in mind?

White progressives are this, black progressives are that. That's what I'm reading. It's as if we're all trying to figure out who's more righteous than the other.

Maybe I'm ignorant. I don't really know any activists. All the white people and black people and Asian people, etc. I've known were just ordinary people. They weren't angry revolutionaries or dangerous subversives or people who spent all their free time organizing rallies and making speeches and printing fliers ot whatever.

Most of them were all just trying to well...get by.

"The lifestyle many whites enjoy is directly attributable to Black energy and determination."

Uh, what lifestyle do I enjoy, let alone one that was given to me by black America? I don't enjoy my lifestyle. I don't think I've ever really had a lifestyle that I truly enjoy. But I'm sure there's a neocon reading this saying that it's all my fault. After all, the world is my oyster, eh?

"Understanding this, many Black people refuse to enhance white lifestyles any further through their actions."

And how are blacks enhancing my so-called lovely lifestyle? How is anyone?

"The attitude is to let whites develop and mount their own effort. When Black people decide that change must come, believe me, it will."

So black people all have this secret plan?

Nobody, black or white is "developing and mounting an effort." We're all too busy shuffling along, trying to survive, and at times are at each other's throats.

Look, I'm not going to bash Conyers over the head. I think he's a good man, but I have a right to be a little let-down by his recent actions or inaction regarding impeachment as does anyone.

We have Bush in our sights but few if any seem willing to pull the trigger. I can't help but be frustrated by that. God, the guy's so dirty, you'd think there'd be D's and R's standing side-by-side dragging him out of the White House kicking and screaming and into San Quentin.

If anything, I think that's what might fuel this anger towards Conyers. People are desperate and scared right now as well as sick and tired. We all want SOMEONE to do SOMETHING. And when a certain person can do something but won't, yeah people are going to get mad at that person regardless of that person's track record or race.

I'm mad at all the D's as well as the R's. We need to get Dubbya out of there. Even if he's a lame duck, he needs to be brought to justice if for no other reason that to make an example of him and show the world that America can and will punish political corruption.

I am so proud of my "son in the movement" the Rev, as we call him.

He is courageously serving his country as he did when he was an Air Force chaplain and preached a sermon on his base about :What Would Jesus Do? before the invasion of Iraq.

I, too, would follow him anywhere.

Cindy

RE: 45 POSTS BEFORE THE THREAD GROUND TO A HALT...

Progressives, beware. This is an important one - if the small U.S. left goes, it will be only partly due to an ascendant right; the other cause will be an increasingly fragmented Democratic and left electorate, at each others' throats as the ship goes down...

The weak working relationship between white and African American progressives is not the single cause of our plight - but it is symptomatic of a greater, weakening fragmentation and failure of outreach.

Race is America remains an uncomfortable subject for many, a huge divide for us all, but dammit, class is more often than not the real cause of the troubles we experience as a society.

I hope Rev. Yearwood is not a Christian Reverend. Based on my past posts on this forum, I hold little hope of the progressive community working with a representative of the Christian religion. I have read that Christians are stupid, superstitious, hate-filled, ect. When I pointed out that there could be a real partnership with religious people and other progressives, I was basically shouted down and told that there was no room for religious people in such sophisticated circles. Good luck Reverend, you have your work cut out for you.

AT the time this series was posted,along with mgovern's article lamenting that rep conyers is no mlk,i was also angry at the former for breaking his promise to push impeachment of bush as chairman of the house judiciary committee.now,with the ramrodding of the protect america act through a democratic congress,i'm not so sure it makes any sense to blast conyers for not being what he certainly never claimed to be,and for not fighting for a lost cause.conyers career in congress started as the result of a number of compromises made in the black community in detroit in the 1960's.no matter what white activists may claim at times,they have a hard time working with black men much more militant than conyers anyway.he knows that,even if on a given day,we forget it.finally,we should never forget to be proportional.there is a whole language,complete with its own pious grammer,and sanctimonious cadence which whites in power employ to sell the equal protection rights,let alone more exotic political aspirations of black people down the river.one need look no further than this spring's pithily racist supreme court deseg decision.why didn't the dems at least filibuster the operationally racist,and explicitly ideological career fringe judge alito? this is an especially poignant rhetorical question when one considers the mammoth contribution blacks have made to the dems over the years.in our more reflective moments we know that militant black men seldom get elected to congress for process reasons,among other things.thats how we got conyers.