Ferguson

[Bjorn]

Please don't post in this thread, at least not if it's challenging people like this. You've made it clear in other places that your views go against the majority of people here and it has led to debates. That's fine. But this topic is a huge deal and is not to be taken lightly. Regardless of how you say it, correcting things or pointing out contrary stuff to people is partly antagonistic and will turn this thread to debate which is honestly not what people have generally used this thread for.

 

I don't want this to read as if I'm saying that you can't have opinions or you're not allowed to voice them here. I'd just really like if you could consider deeply whether they're really worthwhile for this particular thread and maybe conclude that wanting to say something isn't always a good enough reason to say it.

 

I honestly think you're having a bit of an overreaction here, what Ninety-Three posted is the far more accurate description of what happened.  And since this was a planned attempt to get arrested (including them moving from the original spot to another one closer to the building after 20 minutes), it really does a disservice to the intentions and plans of the protestors by not telling their story accurately.  I don't think that was Mangela's intention, since I did see some social media posts earlier that were not characterizing it in an accurate way and it would have been very easy to make poor assumptions based on the Internet's early reaction. 

[Ninety-Three]

Please don't post in this thread, at least not if it's challenging people like this. You've made it clear in other places that your views go against the majority of people here and it has led to debates. That's fine. But this topic is a huge deal and is not to be taken lightly. Regardless of how you say it, correcting things or pointing out contrary stuff to people is partly antagonistic and will turn this thread to debate which is honestly not what people have generally used this thread for.

 

I don't want this to read as if I'm saying that you can't have opinions or you're not allowed to voice them here. I'd just really like if you could consider deeply whether they're really worthwhile for this particular thread and maybe conclude that wanting to say something isn't always a good enough reason to say it.

 

I'm having a really hard time seeing this as anything other than "Your (sourced, factual) correction contradicts the prevailing sentiment of this thread, please leave." I thought that, this being an important issue, people should be informed about significant details like the one I posted.

I guess I'll leave if this is a thread where relevant facts are unwelcome, but I'd like to think that's not true.

[Gaizokubanou]

I second what Bjorn said.  Just with added caveat that regardless of intentions important topics like this needs to get its story told as accurately as possible anyways.

[itsamoose]

Being somewhat ignorant of the specific circumstances of this event,  from all the coverage I've seen today and yesterday the problem seems to be just as prevalent, if not worse than it was a year ago.  I don't know why I'd expect otherwise, after all the federal programs and policies that lead to this situation haven't been addressed in any meaningful way (Congress only working 113 days and all this year).  

 

I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread or the "we need to talk about race" one, but the Black Lives Matter movement that sprung out of Ferguson seems to have seen patchwork success in recent months.  Most recently on two occasions activists representing, or at least claiming to represent, the movement have interrupted rallies for Bernie Sanders.   The justifications I've seen for the actions praise the activists for making people unfamiliar with discrimination to experience the frustration that goes along with it first hand.  I can understand the cleverness of this strategy, but I can't help but see the futility in it as well.  The acts are designed to illicit an angry, even unreasonably angry response, which they have, and the group has subsequently chastised people for having the exact response they wanted them to have.  Again, this may be the point, but I just don't get the choice of target.  In what universe would Bernie "I'm a Liberal socialist" Sanders be against this movement?  Ultimately I've been hesitant to post about this because I feel as though calling a heckler a heckler shouldn't qualify me as a racist, but a number of people seem to disagree.  Anyway, I come to this forum to get opinions of those who are better at thinking about this stuff than I am, so what do y'all think?

[Bjorn]

I've had some conflicted thoughts about the BLM protestors who have targeted Bernie, but ultimately I've come around to being okay with what they've done. 

 

First, heckling and interrupting politicians and candidates is super common.  You can find multiple examples of it already this election cycle (including some white folks interrupting Clinton).  Not to the degree of taking the microphone, but certainly being a significant disruption.  I've never seen the kind of reaction to this that I have from BLM interrupting Bernie.  I think that's kind of telling.  This is an established, regular form of protest, but when black people do it to a progressive darling, white people freak the fuck out about it.  This is not okay. 

 

Second, there's a pretty reasonable argument that Bernie wasn't paying much direct attention to racial inequality in this country, he was focusing mostly on economic inequality.  Now lots of folks say he's the natural ally of BLM, but I think you can excuse people for not trusting that an old white guy who isn't talking about their issues now will be any different once he's elected. 

 

Third, is it a good strategy?  Well, Bernie has made some adjustments to his campaign and he is forcing Hilary to take clearer stances on several issues.  He's hired a new press secretary who is out of the BLM movement and help him communicate better with black people.  It's looking like this was a successful strategy to get both candidates on the record about this whereas they weren't before.  Was it the only strategy?  Probably not, but with activism, you gotta take the gains you can. 

 

Fourth, they have shown the ugly, racist side of progressives who are ready to abandon or attack BLM at the drop of a hat.  This is not a bad thing to force other progressives to face.

[Twig]

For the record, I really appreciate clarifications that 93 supplies. I don't always agree with opinions, but that's fine. This is an important clarification. Facts are super important when it comes to these things, at least to me. The last thing I want to do is misinterpret something and then have that incorrect information thrown back in my face at the worst moment, and I believe the people who participated in that protest would agree.

 

---

 

I watched the video of one of those Bernie Sanders interruptions, and it was real rough. It wasn't even HIS event. He was just speaking there. He was invited.

 

I understand the intent, though. Bernie Sanders is, on paper, as far as I know, one of the more likely candidates to openly support the movement. (He actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement.) Even so, he hasn't (or hadn't?) actually spoken openly on the movement. He's touched on race a bunch, but largely from the economics viewpoint, as in, we need to raise minimum wage, we need to reduce the wealth gap, we need to get rid of corporatization, etc., and that will inherently help minorities because all of those things directly or in directly help minorities. But... still no direct comments on BLM or the state of affairs re: police militarization, and all the other stuff that's sprung up in the past year. In some ways, targeting someone like that, who is ostensibly on your side, but not outspoken about it, is far more effective than, for example, disrupting a rally full of openly racist individuals. If you get him to speak on it, it's going to be good, probably.

 

But that video I watched was really, really rough. It was two women SCREAMING at an old man (not Bernie, but someone else) who was trying to say "We will give you time to speak" until finally he gave up and let them speak right away, and then Bernie Sanders had to leave because it wasn't his event and he had somewhere else to be.

 

I guess that's my thoughts on the subject.

 

EDIT: It may be a common thing, but I don't think that makes it inherently okay. But I'm a political idiot so I guess I don't really know.

 

EDIT EDIT: He's also definitely talked about the prison systems and how it disproportionately affects black youths.

[Bjorn]

EDIT: It may be a common thing, but I don't think that makes it inherently okay. But I'm a political idiot so I guess I don't really know.

 

Yeah, common definitely doesn't make something right, but the main reason that I pointed that out is that you never see the level of vitriol and bullshit that have been thrown at the BLM people thrown at other protesters who interrupt events (at least I don't have any in my memory and some casual searches didn't turn up any, if other people do, please educate me).  Part of considering this whole thing, for me, is not whether the original action is inherently right, but what the response tells us about people, particularly white progressives. 

[Twig]

Yeah also I didn't mean to sound dismissive with my first sentence there. I really am a political idiot. I do believe that some good can come out of things like that, and sometimes it's the only way to get a point across, or at least, it's a required step. But watching that video really just man I didn't want to listen to anything they said, they wouldn't let that man have a single word. I get the whole "now you know how they feel" angle of things, but that doesn't really work on me, I guess. I definitely would not have reacted any differently to a white dude doing the same.

 

(This isn't really relevant to the general topic of this thread, sorry. I just needed to get that out of my brain. I'm good now.)

 

EDIT: I'm trying to find a write-up from the speaker who went immediately before Bernie Sanders. It was really spot on. She also spoke from the perspective of a woman of color and it was good. BUT I CAN'T FIND IT. Hopefully these clues will help someone better at googling find it. I thought it was good. D:

[itsamoose]

I've seen some comparisons made to the code pink protests that interrupted George Bush's speeches a few years ago, which if you look back did draw quite a bit of anger but not quite to the extent of BLM (though that's hard to say, the internet is a whole different beast nowadays).  I would point out however that while code pink is still ongoing, it hasn't been successful in achieving even a single one of it's aims despite it being one of the earlier groups to adopt this style of protest.  The reaction to BLM has been pretty revealing, but again they did what they did in order to get such a reaction.  I don't know that anyone who heckled an entire crowd or prevented something people had been waiting hours for wouldn't have gotten the exact same reaction.  They tried to make people mad, it worked, though I'm not convinced there is value in that in, and of itself.  On the one hand I don't know if they're turning people against them, or they are the Malcom X of the modern civil rights movement(if that analogy makes sense).  Also, they're demands seem to be quite vague from what I've read, and generally don't deal with things like military equipment being gifted to state and local police departments, the establishment of free speech zones (which often provide the pretense for dispersal and arrest), and other policy positions that have clear solutions.

 

 

(This isn't really relevant to the general topic of this thread, sorry. I just needed to get that out of my brain. I'm good now.)

 

Yeah I wasn't sure if it was appropriate here or the we need to talk about race thread.  I can move it over if it's distracting from more pressing matters pertaining to ferguson.

[Gormongous]

I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread or the "we need to talk about race" one, but the Black Lives Matter movement that sprung out of Ferguson seems to have seen patchwork success in recent months.  Most recently on two occasions activists representing, or at least claiming to represent, the movement have interrupted rallies for Bernie Sanders.   The justifications I've seen for the actions praise the activists for making people unfamiliar with discrimination to experience the frustration that goes along with it first hand.  I can understand the cleverness of this strategy, but I can't help but see the futility in it as well.  The acts are designed to illicit an angry, even unreasonably angry response, which they have, and the group has subsequently chastised people for having the exact response they wanted them to have.  Again, this may be the point, but I just don't get the choice of target.  In what universe would Bernie "I'm a Liberal socialist" Sanders be against this movement?  Ultimately I've been hesitant to post about this because I feel as though calling a heckler a heckler shouldn't qualify me as a racist, but a number of people seem to disagree.  Anyway, I come to this forum to get opinions of those who are better at thinking about this stuff than I am, so what do y'all think?

 

Just quickly, it's worth pointing out that the disruptions were performed by Outside Agitators 206, a Seattle-based movement that's arguing for the radical dissolution of governmental structures and is not listed on the Black Lives Matter website's list of endorsing organizations back in January, but is apparently using #BlackLivesMatter as a more visible rallying cry. Further guesses at their motivations are probably not my place to make, but it's worth pointing out that the site recently reposted an article blaming the Democratic Party and its so-called "annexes" like the NAACP, labor unions, and church communities for the current state of race relations in this country, rather than the "terminally racist" Republican party, continuing a seeming trend by OA 206 of attacking Democrats and ignoring Republicans, and also that one of the protesters at Sanders' rally has a somewhat confusing cocktail of personal and political allegiances. It's hard for me not to feel like the intent of the disruptions wasn't precisely to cause some degree of mayhem. A change.org petition by "#BLM activists" is calling for them to apologize, but it's hard to say who actually created that, since the Facebook page for BLM Seattle recently attacked Sanders again for his supposed silence while a post on the "official" website stresses the movement's lack of any political affiliations.

 

But that video I watched was really, really rough. It was two women SCREAMING at an old man (not Bernie, but someone else) who was trying to say "We will give you time to speak" until finally he gave up and let them speak right away, and then Bernie Sanders had to leave because it wasn't his event and he had somewhere else to be.

 

These are mostly my feelings, too. There are so many protests at which these women could have been heard, especially with the anniversary of Mike Brown's death now upon us, but instead they stormed the stage at a tangentially-related paid event and kept the one person that most people came to see from speaking. I have trouble thinking of a crowd that wouldn't turn ugly at that.

[Ninety-Three]

I watched the video of one of those Bernie Sanders interruptions, and it was real rough. It wasn't even HIS event. He was just speaking there. He was invited.

 

I understand the intent, though. Bernie Sanders is, on paper, as far as I know, one of the more likely candidates to openly support the movement. (He actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement.) Even so, he hasn't (or hadn't?) actually spoken openly on the movement. He's touched on race a bunch, but largely from the economics viewpoint, as in, we need to raise minimum wage, we need to reduce the wealth gap, we need to get rid of corporatization, etc., and that will inherently help minorities because all of those things directly or in directly help minorities. But... still no direct comments on BLM or the state of affairs re: police militarization, and all the other stuff that's sprung up in the past year.

 

I was going to post about the Bernie Sanders interruption in the Race thread yesterday, but I was afraid of getting told to stuff my facts-contradicting-the-mood and leave. Now that it's come up:

Bernie Sanders has in fact, actively spoken on the movement and upon police militarization.

It feels like they're working on the same principle that PETA uses a lot these days: There's no such thing as bad publicity. They had to know this would make people angry at them, to have gone ahead and done it anyway that must have either been their goal, or at least an accepted cost of doing business.

[Twig]

I found the article I was talking about!

 

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/08/09/22671957/guest-editorial-why-saturdays-bernie-sanders-rally-left-me-feeling-heartbroken

 

 

Yeah I wasn't sure if it was appropriate here or the we need to talk about race thread.  I can move it over if it's distracting from more pressing matters pertaining to ferguson.

 

I was more talking about my ramblings about my own ignorance. Although I do think maybe this belongs in that other thread more, it's not a big deal. We're a small enough community. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

Gorm: Huh, that's a lot of information to take in. That last link with the Sarah Palin thing and the "religion is bad" angle (I do consider myself an atheist, but goddamn) though seems like it's written specifically as a hit-piece, so I have a hard time not taking it with several grains of salt.

 

EDIT: to 93: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say he's never said anything (although it's worth noting, those are just two small tweets). It's more that he rarely directly addresses the issues that #BLM cares about. He approaches from the economic angle almost entirely, which is definitely something I agree on, but isn't the only angle that needs to be addressed. If that makes sense.

 

It's worth noting I guess that I really like Bernie Sanders, so take everything I say about him accordingly.

[Gormongous]

Gorm: Huh, that's a lot of information to take in. That last link with the Sarah Palin thing and the "religion is bad" angle (I do consider myself an atheist, but goddamn) though seems like it's written specifically as a hit-piece, so I have a hard time not taking it with several grains of salt.

 

Yeah, it had the best accumulation of information, but it's definitely written in an ugly tone. In general, I think it's going to be increasingly common for local-scale groups with higher militancy than the core BLM activists to act under the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag in order to give their actions a standing on the national level, leading to more incidents like this. My main concern is that it'll hurt BlackLivesMatter as a movement and affiliated groups as their allies, but maybe the decentralization thing will work this time, who knows.

[Twig]

Yeah it is not something I am an expert on. I know that I still care!

 

Also, relevant news:

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-campaign-adds-young-black-woman-as-new-public#.yt6RMzlVa

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-racial-inequality_55c81153e4b0f1cbf1e56b77

 

Whether or not the rally interruptions were the trigger doesn't really matter. This is good, yes? Well, I assume so. I haven't read, only just found. They're tow and one day old respectively.

[Mangela Lansbury]

I honestly think you're having a bit of an overreaction here, what Ninety-Three posted is the far more accurate description of what happened. And since this was a planned attempt to get arrested (including them moving from the original spot to another one closer to the building after 20 minutes), it really does a disservice to the intentions and plans of the protestors by not telling their story accurately. I don't think that was Mangela's intention, since I did see some social media posts earlier that were not characterizing it in an accurate way and it would have been very easy to make poor assumptions based on the Internet's early reaction.

I was indeed mistaken!

I also don't think it's right to say they were trying to get arrested, or to necessarily characterize them "trying to get arrested" as inherently making being angry and upset over their arrest an unreasonable response.

Queer communities used to stage die ins in situations that they knew would get them arrested because no one would pay attention to the fact that they were being ravaged by KS/HIV/AIDS. Now black people just keep dying, so they're doing what they need to do to be heard -- for their plight to be seen. Them demonstrating isn't a bad thing, but them being punished for doing so is. So many people still aren't paying attention, or they refuse to admit that we still live in a culture of white supremacy. Things still have to change, and that kind of protest is a viable way to get attention and change minds.

[Ninety-Three]

I was indeed mistaken!

I also don't think it's right to say they were trying to get arrested, or to necessarily characterize them "trying to get arrested" as inherently making being angry and upset over their arrest an unreasonable response.

Queer communities used to stage die ins in situations that they knew would get them arrested because no one would pay attention to the fact that they were being ravaged by KS/HIV/AIDS. Now black people just keep dying, so they're doing what they need to do to be heard -- for their plight to be seen. Them demonstrating isn't a bad thing, but them being punished for doing so is.

 

I think there is a line they crossed which made it unreasonable to be angry that they got arrested. That line is the barricade they climbed over. If their plan was to stage a legal protest with the expectation of an unjust police crackdown which would arrest them, I see your point: they expected to get arrested and it sucks that they did. In that case it's reasonable to get angry because one is angry at the crackdown.

But these people went out and deliberately crossed a barricade, then refused to leave. If you're angry that the police arrested people deliberately breaking the law, what do you want? The police not to arrest them? Unless you're angry at the very notion of police-enforced barricades (which is a valid opinion I totally accept, I'm just assuming you're not because it seems unlikely), I don't understand what there is to be angry about.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Why was the barricade there? To protect the federal courthouse, a building, ostensibly. If there were protestors inside the barricade, and they weren't threatening to safety of property, why arrest them? Why set up the barricade at all if the protests were largely peaceful on the side of protestors, but heinously violent on the part of the police? Certainly not to protect the citizens from those who would attack them, if the reaction to black people existing in a given space is to arrest those people.

 

I don't think working off the assumption that the police act reasonably is a good place to enter into a discussion of how to interpret their actions.

[Twig]

I don't think working off the assumption that the police act reasonably is a good place to enter into a discussion of how to interpret their actions.

This I would agree with entirely.

[Ninety-Three]

Why was the barricade there? To protect the federal courthouse, a building, ostensibly. If there were protestors inside the barricade, and they weren't threatening to safety of property, why arrest them? Why set up the barricade at all if the protests were largely peaceful on the side of protestors, but heinously violent on the part of the police? Certainly not to protect the citizens from those who would attack them, if the reaction to black people existing in a given space is to arrest those people.

 

Ah, so you are angry at the notion of police barricades. In that case I see your point and the anger is reasonable. Actually discussing the validity of barricades as a police tactic is a huge, expertise-requiring topic that I have no wish to get into here.

 

 

I don't think working off the assumption that the police act reasonably is a good place to enter into a discussion of how to interpret their actions.

 

I fundamentally disagree with this. Assuming any human being acts reasonably is a good, maybe the only good, place to enter into a discussion of how to interpret their actions. Everyone's actions seem reasonable to themselves. How many productive analyses come from starting at "So they're completely unreasonable"? It's an attitude that leads to dismissal, not attempts to understand.

[Mangela Lansbury]

I fundamentally disagree with this. Assuming any human being acts reasonably is a good, maybe the only good, place to enter into a discussion of how to interpret their actions. Everyone's actions seem reasonable to themselves. How many productive analyses come from starting at "So they're completely unreasonable"? It's an attitude that leads to dismissal, not attempts to understand.

 

When I talk about the police, I don't talk about any given human being. I talk about the system the humans work in, and the assumptions they operate under. Given the epidemic of police violence in America, I think assuming that the penal system is unreasonable is, uh... reasonable.

 

EDIT: I don't generally talk about any given human being, but I do sometimes. I guess I should clarify that. I'm not talking about individuals here, but the system they work within, through, and as.

[Ninety-Three]

When I talk about the police, I don't talk about any given human being. I talk about the system the humans work in, and the assumptions they operate under. Given the epidemic of police violence in America, I think assuming that the penal system is unreasonable is, uh... reasonable.

 

EDIT: I don't generally talk about any given human being, but I do sometimes. I guess I should clarify that. I'm not talking about individuals here, but the system they work within, through, and as.

 

Ah, I had been assuming you meant the police as in the collection of humans who wear uniforms, not the police as in the organization (analogously: the distinction between "politicians" and "the government"). Objection withdrawn, the organization does a bunch of crazy things.

[Bjorn]

Yeah, it had the best accumulation of information, but it's definitely written in an ugly tone. In general, I think it's going to be increasingly common for local-scale groups with higher militancy than the core BLM activists to act under the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag in order to give their actions a standing on the national level, leading to more incidents like this. My main concern is that it'll hurt BlackLivesMatter as a movement and affiliated groups as their allies, but maybe the decentralization thing will work this time, who knows.

 

This is more a general response than a specific one, but I'm quoting you to separate it out from the barricade discussion above. 

 

Something I didn't address earlier that I also found interesting was a response I saw repeated by multiple people which was essentially, "Sanders isn't perfect, and we shouldn't expect perfection out of him, it's just take him some time to address this particular issue to other people's satisfaction." 

 

The reason I found that response particularly interesting is the implication that they do apparently expect perfection from the BLM (or whatever group it was that did the Seattle thing) to act perfectly, more closer to perfection than they did.  It falls in line to me of how it's okay for police to make mistakes, but mistakes by black people justify their execution.  This is kind of like the progressive version of that, white people are allowed to be flawed, but black people better be perfect in how they act around them or we'll abandon our support of them. 

 

 

I was indeed mistaken!

I also don't think it's right to say they were trying to get arrested, or to necessarily characterize them "trying to get arrested" as inherently making being angry and upset over their arrest an unreasonable response.

Queer communities used to stage die ins in situations that they knew would get them arrested because no one would pay attention to the fact that they were being ravaged by KS/HIV/AIDS. Now black people just keep dying, so they're doing what they need to do to be heard -- for their plight to be seen. Them demonstrating isn't a bad thing, but them being punished for doing so is. So many people still aren't paying attention, or they refuse to admit that we still live in a culture of white supremacy. Things still have to change, and that kind of protest is a viable way to get attention and change minds.

 

Fair point!  I mostly phrased it that way because they knew what the likely outcome of their action was.  I generally agree with your take on barricade placement and police response to peaceful protests like this, but was speaking more from a realistic expectation stance rather than and idealist stance. 

[Gormongous]

This is more a general response than a specific one, but I'm quoting you to separate it out from the barricade discussion above. 

 

Something I didn't address earlier that I also found interesting was a response I saw repeated by multiple people which was essentially, "Sanders isn't perfect, and we shouldn't expect perfection out of him, it's just take him some time to address this particular issue to other people's satisfaction." 

 

The reason I found that response particularly interesting is the implication that they do apparently expect perfection from the BLM (or whatever group it was that did the Seattle thing) to act perfectly, more closer to perfection than they did.  It falls in line to me of how it's okay for police to make mistakes, but mistakes by black people justify their execution.  This is kind of like the progressive version of that, white people are allowed to be flawed, but black people better be perfect in how they act around them or we'll abandon our support of them.

 

You're right. I wrote what I did out of concern for discrediting #BlackLivesMatter and placing people of color in danger, but it's true that my own expectations and anxieties are part of the social mosaic restricting black action. I really don't get the point of claiming to be taking down all political candidates, only starting with the most progressive one and getting to the less progressive ones maybe never, but I'm trying...

[Ninety-Three]

Something I didn't address earlier that I also found interesting was a response I saw repeated by multiple people which was essentially, "Sanders isn't perfect, and we shouldn't expect perfection out of him, it's just take him some time to address this particular issue to other people's satisfaction." 

 

The reason I found that response particularly interesting is the implication that they do apparently expect perfection from the BLM (or whatever group it was that did the Seattle thing) to act perfectly, more closer to perfection than they did.  It falls in line to me of how it's okay for police to make mistakes, but mistakes by black people justify their execution.  This is kind of like the progressive version of that, white people are allowed to be flawed, but black people better be perfect in how they act around them or we'll abandon our support of them. 

 

I think that's an unfair and terrible comparison. The response says Sanders is doing well but not perfectly. The problem those people have with the disruption of the Sanders speech is not "It was done well but could have been done perfectly", it seems to be largely "It was done terribly and should have not been done at all". You're making it look like this is a double standard when it's absolutely not.

 

Also, who are these people abandoning support of imperfect black people? I have seen a lot of angry internet talk about the Sanders disruption, and no one has given any indication that they're withdrawing support for black rights because these few people did something the speaker disliked. Even those saying the protesters made the movement look bad were mostly lamenting it.

[Gormongous]

Also, who are these people abandoning support of imperfect black people? I have seen a lot of angry internet talk about the Sanders disruption, and no one has given any indication that they're withdrawing support for black rights because these few people did something the speaker disliked. Even those saying the protesters made the movement look bad were mostly lamenting it.

 

From the link that Twig posted near the top of the page:

When the disruption first happened, the crowd (mostly white) turned ugly. It's hard to say what is the chicken or the egg. Some of it may have stemmed from the protesters calling the whole crowd racist. Some of it was from annoyance at the disruption. Some was probably from deep disagreement about tactics in a movement to get attention to an issue. Some was from deep disappointment because people had stood in the hot sun for hours to hear Bernie. Whatever it was, the conversations that ensued—the name calling of white and black people against each other, including some people calling blacks who didn't agree with what was happening racist—were so painful. I was in the speakers tent and Pam Keeley alerted me to two young black girls (Gina Owens grandchildren) who were weeping, they were so scared, so I went over to comfort them. We stood with our arms around each other, and in some small way, that gave me the greatest sense of doing something tangible—to be with people I love, assuring them they would be safe, and that none of us would ever let harm come to them. After the protests, several people came up and wanted to talk. Many were furious—some white people said they no longer support BLM. Others said they do support it but this erodes their support. Some said outrageous things from anger. Others seemed befuddled. Some understood. People will have to work this out for themselves, but as we all do, I hope that we can open our hearts to all of the pain and suffering in the world and be as compassionate and kind as possible to each other so that we can also heal as we learn and listen.