Video: White Protesters and White Reporters At DNC Demonstrations Told To Move To The Back To “Make Room for the Black and Brown Brothers and Sisters.”

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 8.54.17 PMWe have discussed past protests where organizers have engaged in open racial discrimination in the name of fight discrimination.  We have another such example out of the Black DNC Resistance March in Philadelphia with a twist: the racial segregation of reporters.  The question is whether reporters should be disciplined for agreeing to such racial discrimination either as beneficiaries or victims of such discrimination.

One of the leaders declares “I need all white people to move to the back – make space because this is a Black Resistance March . . . I need all white people to move to the back and make room for the black and brown brothers and sisters.”

That was not well received by the crowd which was reportedly half white and one person asks “What if white people were in Ferguson.”

It did not matter.  Whites were told to go to the back of the protest: “You will appropriately take your place in the back of this march because it will be truly led by the black and brown community and that’s it.”

Then she added that the rule extended to media:  “Make room for black media.  White media get to the back. Black media come to the front.” It is not clear if any in the media complied but I would have serious reservations about a reporter who benefitted from racial discrimination over his or her colleagues.  Indeed, all of the reporters should have refused such a discriminatory rule.

What do you think?

86 thoughts on “Video: White Protesters and White Reporters At DNC Demonstrations Told To Move To The Back To “Make Room for the Black and Brown Brothers and Sisters.””

  1. Autumn, I agree, 4 people up on stage, 2 women and 2 men. I like the symmetry. But, it won’t happen. The game is rigged.

  2. @SWM

    Thank you for answering! Sooo, to you, the benefit is that illegals will do the jobs no one else wants to do. Which is a sort of benefit. I guess. But what is the cost? Americans should be doing those jobs whether they want to or not. While Mexicans work their tails off climbing ladders, or working in kitchens, or picking crops, why aren’t poor white and black Americans doing that?

    1. Because there are too many ways to get money without having to work. Welfare, food stamps, illegal activities, sponging off loose women, and part time jobs, etc.

    2. They can’t make enough money doing the Mexican’s job to survive, or even exceed the benefits they get from Welfare and/or their part time job. Because there is a surplus of labor which drives down wages.

    How can we fairly throw people off the benefits, without decent paying work being available for them? And how can those same jobs provide a livable wage if there is a huge surplus of labor?

    Sooo, one could start by chasing out the illegals, and require people on the dole to get to work. Plus, if 40 hrs per week at say $12 /hr is available, then the guys working the 30 hrs per week jobs at $8 /hr are heading out the door. Which causes the cheapskates handing out part time jobs to get real.

    This is just with the basically unskilled class. Once their wages start to rise, then the classes above them start to go up also. But really just think how America could change for the better if there was simply not a huge source of cheap labor? IIRC, real wages have hardly increased at all the last 30 or so years. Due to cheap illegal labor, and labor arbitrage to China. But you know what? You can’t arbitrage the roofer’s job out of the country, or the painter’s, or the fast food guy. That is where the recovery starts, and where the middle class starts to mend.

    Plus, as I have said many times, I would prefer to hire a Mexican, legal or otherwise, all day long over your typical lazy-a$$ black. But should I have that option? To be fair, no I shouldn’t.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  3. @Mike Appleton

    Archetypes are kind of broad brush thingies. There was a psychiatrist guy named Carl Jung (pronounced “yung”). Anyway, he wrote some books, and a lot of people still think he was pretty smart. This might help you understand archetypes better:

    Summary of the Above

    The contents of the collective unconscious are called “archetypes,” which means
    they are original (i.e., primal), inherited patterns, or forms of thought and
    experience. They are the ancient, unconscious source of much that we think, do,
    and say as human beings. They are the “givens” in our psychological makeup,
    the patterns that shape our perceptions of the world, the furnishings that are
    present in our psychological home from the moment of birth. We inherit the
    same forms, but each of us fills in the content by the way we experience our
    lives. Thus, Father might be a positive archetype to one person, but it might be
    filled with negative meaning for another.

    Archetypes can be loosely compared to the instincts of animals. For example,
    birds instinctively know how to build nests and all the birds of a species build
    the exact same kind of nest. The bird is unaware that it has a special instinct for
    a particular form of nest building. Nevertheless, it does. Or we could say that
    dogs, as a species, are psychologically patterned to be loyal and obedient to the
    archetype of Master. Master is an archetype that is strongly developed in dogs;
    however, it does not appear to be an archetype that exists in the psyches of
    giraffes, snails, or buffaloes.

    Humans are the same way. Archetypes that exist in humans include Male and
    Female, God and the Devil, Goddess and Witch, Father and Brother, Mother and
    Sister, Dragon, Lion, Priest, Lover, Hero, Tree, Snake, and so on. We humans
    automatically inherit the outlines of these archetypes, fill them in with colours
    and details of our individual experiences, attach meaning to them, and project
    them into the outer world.

    Archetypes are neither good nor bad. They simply are. Archetypes are not
    susceptible to being sugar-coated or tamed by civilization; they live an
    autonomous existence at the root of our psyches in their original raw and
    primitive states. To most humans, with our limited awareness of the natural
    cycles of life and our fear of suffering, certain archetypal qualities seem good
    and others seem bad. We are attracted to the “positive,” creating, nurturing
    aspects of Mother, for example, but terrified of her “negative” qualities such as
    her terrible fierce possessiveness, or her power of life and death over us.

    I think a lot of Democrats and Liberals are into the Priest archetype, aka The Wise Old Man archetype, which is why so much of what they expound sounds like it is faith based. Me, I am probably more of the Trickster archetype. Which is a pretty kewl one!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. @Nick
    I agree – let’s have a four way debate. Trump, HRC, Stein and Johnson. While Johnson does have a few good ideas in his platform he’s pro TPP. So I am JillnotHill all the way. If the Donald wins that’s on the Demoncrats.

  5. Anyone even a little curious how when we have 2 awful duopoly candidates that a pretty good Libertarian party team gets no love from the MSM? Johnson and Weld SHOULD BE IN THE DEBATES.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks