#blmseattle

On August 10th, 2015, online publication, the Atlantic, posted “A Tough Weekend for Black Lives Matter,” in which author Conor Friedersdorf openly disagreed with the disruption of 2016 presidential democratic candidate Bernie Sander’s rally in Seattle by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists the previous weekend.

Led by co-founders of the Seattle chapter of BLM, Marissa Janae Johnson and Mara Jacqueline Willaford, a dozen activists had jumped on to the stage of the candidate - who has himself proclaimed to be the greatest ally to the BLM movement in the 2016 election, in one of the most progressive states, in one of the most progressive cities - and were met with sentiments of irritation and disappointment from the crowd; the crowd that came to see the most liberal, fight-the-system-of-power-and-corruption, last-hope-for-a-democracy, real-man-of-the-people, marched-with-MLK, underdog champion Bernie Sanders.

If there was ever to be a platform for a growing movement of marginalized people to seize a moment to bring national awareness to their cause, I would have thought this would be it. Instead, the general consensus of the media seemed to be that this was a bad tactic for the BLM movement.

“In a logical world, these tactics, love them or hate them, would have no effect on public support for a broad range of reforms to America’s criminal justice system. Still, this sort of activism strikes me as a self-inflicted blow to Black Lives Matter,” Friedersdorf wrote of the public protest. “And yet, Black Lives Matter is not, as best as I can tell, a movement that’s willing to ally itself with anyone, right, left, or center, who supports race-conscious policing reforms.”

Friedersdorf has written about police brutality and racial statistics before and considers himself an ally, writing, “Going forward, I hope and expect that it [BLM] will continue to act with urgency, but in a manner more likely to increase the odds that a coalition from across the ideological spectrum will rein in the excesses of policing and incarceration,” which may be why he feels justified in making the statements that these activists were being counterproductive to their own cause as though they were observations rather than opinions.

While allies - especially white, cis, male allies who are voices of authority already – can be very valuable to movements of marginalized people. However, it is important as allies to allow the platform to be maintained by those marginalized people. It is not an ally’s place to speak in place of a marginalized voice, it is their duty to make those marginalized voices accessible and heard.

On August 21st, 2015, Conor Friedersdorf again wrote about the BLM movement in Seattle – this time with an interview (via email correspondence) with a Black Seattle woman. Martha Tesema explained how the BLM interruption of the rally has actually shed light on the neo-liberalism of Seattle white residents, writing, “As a black woman in this city, I think it was incredibly brave….It disrupted the status-quo and kick-started needed conversations that I was desperate to have with strangers, friends, and co-workers. People have this idea of Seattle as a utopia. And yes, it’s a beautiful city on many levels. But despite how liberal and progressive Seattle claims to be, it’s clear from the reactions to the protest that there’re still many who are blind to a variety of issues locally and nationally.”

Friedersdorf debated Tesema about the general niceties of the protest, describing a hypothetical woman who may have been one of the disgruntled crowd participants. “I imagine a woman who rearranged her schedule, hired a babysitter, and traveled an hour to the Westlake neighborhood to see a candidate she regards as a potential savior for the country. This might be the only opportunity she ever has to see him speak in person.” His devil’s advocate for the innocent bystander who is inconvenienced by the the protest is emblematic of the larger problem: white people not being concerned with problems that don’t have a direct effect on them.

“I'm assuming your hypothetical woman is white,” Tesema responded. “...Unless the status quo is challenged, people will not pay attention. Historically, radical action has created essential space to address these issues. (But was this even that radical?) I think the reactions are just as important to analyze. The booing, the yelling, the chanting—they all show that just because you are a progressive, liberal voter does not mean you are above racism….

In theory, seeking out constructive criticism is a great idea. But what are we critiquing, Black Lives Matter as organization or the entire black liberation movement? Someone who is not directly targeted by these injustices is entitled to their opinion, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. But someone who is not affected cannot personally understand the motivation of the movement. What is their frame of reference to critique the ways this movement is engaging to bring about change in communities of color? Do they have the standing to criticize? It feels as if it is a manifestation of privilege to be able to critique a movement that’s not your own.