By Bud Gankhuyag
The highly publicized disruption of a Bernie Sanders speech on August 8th in Seattle, Washington, caused by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford, has sparked widespread condemnation and even outright dismissal of the entire movement for black lives. Many are unable to make sense of why these activists interjected a speech of an outspoken socially progressive candidate; others have reasoned that this act was indeed senseless. By taking such a reactionary and antagonistic stance, however, critics are bypassing any consideration of the perspectives of the activists and importantly the very reasons behind their choices. Instead, what has taken the place of critical understanding is an ignorant ascription of lack of intelligence and political acumen, accusations that are racial and gendered. Demonizing BLM and movements for racial justice only serve to bolster the relative privilege and myopia of white progressivism.
 |
| Elaine Thompson / AP |
As activists Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford firmly stood on stage, juxtaposed to a silent, deferred Sanders. They welcomed the Senator to the city that has spent $200 million to imprison black children and houses a police force riddled by use of force, racial profiling,and scandals throughout the year. They left the stage after five minutes, but not before commemorating the one-year anniversary of Michael Brown's death and declaring to Sanders that the BLM movement will persist regardless of who is elected president. The crowd of mostly white Sanders supporters quickly expressed their outrage; when Johnson pressed to the crowd that "it is time that we honor [the life of Michael Brown] here and now," one heckler claimed "we've already done it!" On public facebook comments responding to videos of the incident, angered Sanders supporters called the two women "uneducated on politics" and "Idiots... This is why you do your research, so you don't make yourself, cause and people look like idiots. What a shame."
These two activists have received criticism from all angles, including from those within BLM. Anyone can choose to disagree with the strategy, but there is a difference between an informed, political disagreement and a disagreement via ignorance. What has happened in response to this incident is not an informed debate, but swift condemnation.
These scathing reactions reveal the schism of racism within liberal movements that have long been hiding underneath so-called progressive rhetoric. To the woman who shouted that remembering Mike Brown's life was no longer relevant:how thinly veiled must your support for black lives have been to say such a wanton remark? Are you sure you support black lives, or for that matter, the principle of equality which you supposedly support?
Such inflammatory comments suggest that these activists were emotionally overwhelmed, overly critical of Sanders, and/or merely unintelligent. However, this public usurpation was not spontaneously done, but strategically orchestrated; the activists knew that such an act would force both the Sanders campaign and the nation as a whole to pay attention to BLM. Their act was a political choice, not a spontaneous act based only on emotional outrage. Yes, emotions were part of the equation, but to label this display as one of pure sentimental lunacy assumes that these women of color cannot think on their own and cannot stand on their own two feet. This assumption omits the fact that they were standing up for a conscious movement, a movement that is fighting the reality that black lives are being taken by police forces across the nation, that black Americans make up just over one-tenth of the nation's population but nearly half the prison population, and that 13 of 19 transgender murder victims in 2015 have been women of color (already exceeding last year's count).
For black communities, it is difficult to ignore these facts, but because white people are less threatened by these heinous systems, they feel they can more easily disavow from these issues. Such is why when Bernie Sanders, the progressive symbol of alleviating class inequality and spiraling corporatism, is interceded by two black women who speak on black lives, outrage ensues. For Johnson and Willaford, though, times are too urgent not to express rage, subvert the dominant political narratives that shut out conversations on black lives, and fight to make vital voices heard. For those of us on the outside looking in, we should not enforce a paternalistic attitude that prescribes methods of action, but instead join them and follow their leadership in the struggle for racial justice.
The incident in Seattle was preceded by another interjection by BLM spokespeople in an event that highlighted Sanders and former Maryland governor and presidential candidateMartin O'Malley. Before these incidents, Sanders did not have a specific platform on racial justice. Now, he has been forced to take a clear stand on racial justice and has put pressure on Hillary Clinton and other democratic candidates to do the same.
These charged interactions between BLM and presidential candidates reveal a deeper issue behind intercultural dialogue. Behind political disagreements are barriers that prevent two parties from understanding each other's perspective. But agreement is not necessary for understanding each other, only a willingness to hear the other side. In the unequal terrain of identity politics, both sides can be guilty of refusing to acknowledge the other, but it is often the advantaged group who can live through this misunderstanding without consequence to themselves.
Under the inescapable context of power, the meanings and symbols behind words are often not the same for the privileged and the oppressed. We hear what we choose to hear, without thinking of the subjective meaning behind each statement. In order to mitigate this dissonance, we must get rid of any notion of objectivity, interrogate our own individual position in structures of power, and consider the complex reasons why people do and say what they feel is necessary. If you are confused about the actions of BLM activists, research why certain choices were made, and think about the urgency behind the cause for which they fight. Resorting to accusations of stupidity and refusing to consider multiple perspectives hide the underlying ideological factors to the use of language in politics. These inexcusable shortcuts do not only enshroud political misinformation, but they more fundamentally work to orchestrate such divides.
Bud GankhuyagTHE DECOLONIZER
September 2015
Read the full newsletter here »