HuffPo: Obama Praises Black Lives Matter, But Says Activists Must Compromise

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/obama-black-lives-matter_us_571b9414e4b0d4d3f7238bb6

President Barack Obama on Saturday praised the work the Black Lives Matter movement has done to highlight racial inequality, but also strongly cautioned activists that they needed to be realistic about their proposals and be willing to compromise.

Speaking at a town hall in London, the president mentioned Black Lives Matter specifically as he laid out his vision of how activists can achieve social change.

“As a general rule, I think that what, for example, Black Lives Matter is doing now to bring attention to the problem of a criminal justice system that sometimes is not treating people fairly based on race, or reacting to shootings of individuals by police officers, has been really effective in bringing attention to problems,
” Obama said.

But the president went on to say that activists needed to be realistic about what could be achieved immediately and sometimes needed to compromise to achieve long-term goals.

“One of the things I caution young people about, though, that I don’t think is effective is once you’ve highlighted an issue and brought it to people’s attention and shined a spotlight, and elected officials or people who are in a position to start bringing about change are ready to sit down with you, then you can’t just keep on yelling at them,” Obama said.

Once activists get access to people in power, Obama said, they have a “responsibility to prepare an agenda that is achievable.” Organizers, he continued, “sometimes need to take half a loaf that will advance the gains that you seek, understanding that there’s gonna be more work to do, but this is what is achievable at this moment.”
 
Well I have to agree to a certain extent, but I don't know if there enough willing legislative participants to get anything done.
 
I think the headline - they need to learn to "compromise" - might be a bit misleading as far as what Obama's trying to say here. He's not trying to say they should compromise on what they want or their beliefs, just that progressive change is not something that happens all at once over night and that BLM needs to work with those in power who are sympathetic to their cause to push things forward one step at a time.
 
He's not saying that they shouldn't protest, but he is saying that once your protest has brought the attention of government officials and people in power, then 1.) You have achieved a major goal of the protest itself and 2.) It's time to be pragmatic. It's a very reasonable stance to take as only protesting will only get you so far.
 
He's not saying that they shouldn't protest, but he is saying that once your protest has brought the attention of government officials and people in power, then 1.) You have achieved a major goal of the protest itself and 2.) It's time to be pragmatic. It's a very reasonable stance to take as only protesting will only get you so far.

Bingo, being loud and disruptive is fine for getting people's attention on the issues but once you have their attention you need to do more then just being disruptive.
 
I mean, to an extent I agree with him and understand, but BLM and its members have been compromising for a very long time on many of the things that matter to them.
 
He's isn't saying compromise on the change you want to see.

He's just cautioning that yelling at people incessantly tends to polarize the discussion and sway moderates away from you. You need to take what you can get, without resorting to needlessly combative rhetoric that accomplishes nothing productive.
 
“One of the things I caution young people about, though, that I don’t think is effective is once you’ve highlighted an issue and brought it to people’s attention and shined a spotlight, and elected officials or people who are in a position to start bringing about change are ready to sit down with you, then you can’t just keep on yelling at them,” Obama said.

Once activists get access to people in power, Obama said, they have a “responsibility to prepare an agenda that is achievable.” Organizers, he continued, “sometimes need to take half a loaf that will advance the gains that you seek, understanding that there’s gonna be more work to do, but this is what is achievable at this moment.”
This feels like it's indirectly referring to BLM getting a private meeting with Clinton and then not being able to come up with any policy or actual agenda to proffer. That incident is certainly what comes to mind first for me, and it was definitely an embarrassing moment for the group. The entire quote sounds like something Clinton would say, but can't. And even Obama is going to get the stink eye from a lot of people despite being on point.
 
That is not what he is saying at all, he is saying don't let the anger cloud your vision.

Well the half a loaf things seems like it means that he's telling them they won't get everything they want. It's a misleading headline though that makes it seems like he's chiding them.
 
That's kind of fucked. All they're asking for is equality, which, under the law, is already supposed to exist.

What's fucked about it? It reality, they have the ears of politicians, continuing to yell at a somebody after they already agreed to what you have said isn't going to help you get things done and instead cause possible supporters to start to ignore you.
 
Well the half a loaf things seems like it means that he's telling them they won't get everything they want.

That they won't get everything they want right away, because unfortunately it's just not going to be possible to reform a deeply corrupt system in one fell swoop. These things take time.
 
Please Barack,,,so you expect us to come to negotiations with a market owner who proclaims "you can have bread for half off but aren't allowed to buy water".
 
What's fucked about it? It reality, they have the ears of politicians, continuing to yell at a somebody after they already agreed to what you have said isn't going to help you get things done and instead cause possible supporters to start to ignore you.
What changes have politicians agreed to? Body cameras and...?

I've seen those local meetings with politicians. They don't budge.
 
“One of the things I caution young people about, though, that I don’t think is effective is once you’ve highlighted an issue and brought it to people’s attention and shined a spotlight, and elected officials or people who are in a position to start bringing about change are ready to sit down with you, then you can’t just keep on yelling at them,” Obama said.

and which elected officials have done this?
 
Well the half a loaf things seems like it means that he's telling them they won't get everything they want. It's a misleading headline though that makes it seems like he's chiding them.

I think it's more like "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

I think he's saying that the pursuit for social justice often occurs incrementally, which has historically been true.

and this.
 
That's kind of fucked. All they're asking for is equality, which, under the law, is already supposed to exist.

But that's obviously not a simple issue, and the way to go about achieving it is obviously simple either. Where does, say, affirmative action fall in your "all they're asking for is equality" idea?
 
It's the job of politicians to compromise and listen. The job of the people is to make their grievances heard. Somehow modern US politics has reversed this order of things.
 
He's right. Yelling and screaming only get you so far. As he said once you get them to sit down and talk to you, you then need to talk to them and work towards improving things. Continuing to yell and scream at that point does nothing to help your cause. If anything it hurts your cause at that point because they'll look at you and go gee they don't want to talk and try to improve anything. Here I am sitting here willing to talk to them and work with them and they still just want to yell and scream at me. They will then just tune out and quit paying you any attention.
 
It's the job of politicians to compromise and listen. The job of the people is to make their grievances heard. Somehow modern US politics has reversed this order of things.
.

He's right. Yelling and screaming only get you so far. As he said once you get them to sit down and talk to you, you then need to talk to them and work towards improving things. Continuing to yell and scream at that point does nothing to help your cause. If anything it hurts your cause at that point because they'll look at you and go gee they don't want to talk and try to improve anything. Here I am sitting here willing to talk to them and work with them and they still just want to yell and scream at me. They will then just tune out and quit paying you any attention.
What "continuing to yell and scream" moment in particular are you talking about?
 
It sure would be nice if some political figure could come up with a political roadmap for BLM to help them centralize and communicate their ideas and goals. Someone like a soon to be former president and lawyer from a city with one of the most troubled black populations in the country...
 
He didn't say anything about compromising though

He absolutely did without using the exact word, at least from what I read in the OP. The loaf statement is precisely that. And when he suggests that you can't keep yelling at people, that in and of itself is also a reference to some form of compromise. Now, it's obvious when he says this that he's also being mindful of the fact that there are different degrees of compromise. There can be a good compromise, and there can be a bad compromise.
 
That is not what he is saying at all, he is saying don't let the anger cloud your vision.

Yeah. It's more keep in mind that the protest itself isn't your goal, but you need keep your goals in focus and adjust once the objectives of the protest have been met so that you can work towards the change you are fighting for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom