Mediaboss Marketing

News Laws & Policy

Aug 11, 2015, 6:09pm Imani Gandy

The last few weeks have exposed some real ugliness in the progressive movement, ugliness that has been simmering just below the surface for a long time, but which, due to Black womens increasing recognition of our political power coupled with leadership in the #BlackLivesMatter movement and unapologetic commitment to dismantling white supremacy, has erupted into a fountain of White Progressive racism.

Yesterday morning, I tweeted something that now seems irrational.

I tweeted that there was no way I would vote for Bernie Sanders, and that is entirely due to the relentless campaign of harassment to whichsome of his more overzealous supporters have subjected me and other Black people on Twitter and Facebook. I even mentioned, as I have in the past, that I would vote for Hillary Clinton out of spite even though I have not yet forgiven her for the racist campaign that she ran in 2008 against President Obama.

As soon as I tweeted it, I knew it was irrational. Why would I refuse to vote for a person whose political positions are most aligned with mine simply because his followers have treated me with overwhelming disrespect, condescension, and flat-out ugliness? Its irrational. I admit it.

But do you know what else is irrational? The behavior of Sanders fanatical supporters in response to the disruption of #BlackLivesMatter activists at Netroots Nation and the Sanders rally in Seattle led by Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford this past weekend.

The last few weeks have exposed some real ugliness in the progressive movement, ugliness that has been simmering just below the surface for a long time, but which, due to Black womens increasing recognition of our political power coupled with leadership in the #BlackLivesMatter movement and unapologetic commitment to dismantling white supremacy, has erupted into a fountain of White Progressive racism.

And it is appalling.

So it is in that context that I frustratedly tweeted that I would never vote for Bernie Sanders.

But the thing about irrationality is that sometimes it subsides and rational thought takes hold. And so it did with me.

Yes, I am tired of being belittled, and slandered, and talked down to, but that doesnt mean that I should sacrifice my well-being and the well-being of my community out of spite. That would be ridiculous and self-defeating. And I suspect that the many Black people that I have seen who have echoed my sentiment will change their tune in the upcoming months.

But for that to happen, Sanders overzealous supporters, many of whom are fundamentally indistinguishable from Ron Paul supporters in 2012, need to back off.

Sanders fanatics have been viciously harassing Black people on Twitter and Facebook for weeks nowever since the #BlackLivesMatter activists stood up during the presidential town hall at Netroots Nation and demanded that Sanders provide substantive answers about what he would do about the epidemic of police violence in the Black community.

In the wake of that protest, Sanders supporters took to Twitter to condescend, patronize, and belittle Black people, talking to us as if we are stupid and dont know whats best for us, and therefore should listen to our White Progressive betters lest we usher in a Trump presidency or a Clinton presidency or whomever is the Boogey Man du jour.

These supporters have twisted and perverted what is a movement about the liberation of Black people and turned it into a weapon to be used against us. They threaten to withdraw their support in protesting state violence against Black people. One Twitter user frankly told me that he was sick of #BlackLivesMatter and would actually vote for people who will put you in your place.

In the wake of the Seattle protest over the weekend, Sanders fanatical supporters behaved just as horribly as they had after the Netroots Nation protest.

If this progressive rageprimarily white progressive rageat Black voters continues, one has to wonder whether or not Sanders can be defined by the company he keeps, and whether that company will sink any chance he has at becoming the next Democratic nominee.

And let me be clear: It wont be Sanders fault if he loses the primary. It will be the fault of his supporters.

Despite reacting poorly to the protests when they were happening, Sanders has been doing all the right things.

Mere days after the Netroots protest, Bernie Sanders began tweeting about #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHerName. Indeed, the day after the protest, he said Sandra Blands name at a rally in Dallas.

And in a move I consider savvy, he hired Symone Sanders, a young Black organizer with the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and supporter of the #BlackLivesMatter movement as his press secretary. And whatever your view of the hirein theNew Republic, Jamil Smith writes that hiring Symone Sanders, a black woman, as his press secretary cant be expected to mollify the movement. #BlackLivesMatter wants policies for black people, not black people for his policiesit is undeniable that the #BlackLivesMatter protesters are inspiring Bernie Sanders to address the concerns of Black women.

On the morning after the Seattle protest, Sanders published a page to his website thataddresses racial justice, and specifically addresses police violence on its own terms. His racial justice platform includes Physical Violence (i.e., police violence), Political Violence (i.e., disenfranchisement), Legal Violence (i.e., mass incarceration of people of color), and his bread and butter, Economic Violence (unemployment and income inequality.)

This would not have happened were it not for the #BlackLivesMatter protesters.

Indeed, Smith writes, A campaign representative reached out to me to say that those proposals, in the works for the three weeks since Netroots, were derived froma speechthats been on the site since July 25.

Just yesterday, Bernie Sanders tackled the issue of institutional racism at a rally in Los Angeles.

And lets not forget that immediately after the Netroots protest, Democracy for America, the organization founded by Howard Dean in 2004, issued a press release via email stating the following:

After hearing the calls of our friends in the #BlackLivesMatter movement, thats exactly what we intend to do. Here is what Democracy for America is committing to as an organization with a mission to elect more and better Democrats across the country:

None of this would have happened if not for the #BlackLivesMatter protesters.

The #BlackLivesMatter activists are changing the political conversation. Black women are flexing our political muscles. And it is obvious that Bernie Sanders and the progressive infrastructure is listening.

The only people who continue to stalwartly refuse to listen are his fanatical supporters. They stubbornly continue to claim that the protests are stupid and counterproductive despite clear evidence to the contrary, and they express their displeasure in rhetoric steeped in racism andmisogynoir.

And its profoundly depressing.

Ultimately, Bernie Sanders has a coalition problem. His coalition is comprised of primarily white progressives and liberals, unsurprising for a man who hails from a state that is 94 percent white. And when a vocal section of that coalition thinks belittling and harassing Black people is a smart way to encourage Black people to vote for Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders likely has a larger problem on his hands than he probably realizes.

Look at the numbers. Black women are the most loyal and reliable Democratic voting bloc. We won the election for Obama in 2012. Black voter turnout surpassed white voter turnout in 2012. We won the gubernatorial election for Terry McAuliffe in Virginia.

No Democratic candidate can win without the support of Black voters, particularly Black women. And now that that is clear, we are no longer content for Democrats to take our votes for granted. The crisis in our community is too graveto blindly support a candidate and then hope theyll get around to addressing our issues. Weve been down that road before.

And when we see Sanders supporters entertaining conspiracy theories about the #BlackLivesMatter movement being funded by George Soros or Hillary Clinton, we have to wonder why it is easier for white and non-Black progressives to believe in ludicrous theories about #BlackLivesMatter attempting to destroy the progressive movement or destroy Bernie Sanders than it is to believe that the movement is beyond partisan politicsthat the Black women who are standing up in protest are fighting for their very lives and the lives of their children.

The name-calling and slander of #BlackLivesMatter supporters and activists, particularly Black women, by white and non-Black progressives is truly shameful.

Ben Cohen at The Daily Banter called the protesters idiots.

Hamilton Nolan at Gawker called them stupid.

The staff of Ring of Fire Radio wrote a truly hateful post in which they complained that the #BlackLivesMatter movement was too focused on Black queer womenbecause God forbid a movement decenter whitenessand that Black lesbians (i.e., the founders of #BlackLivesMatter) were trying to destroy Bernie Sanders and the progressive movement. (That post has since been removed.)

Marissa Johnson, one of the women who led the Seattle protest, has been smeared ina blog post being circulated on Patheos as well as a fact-free blog post on PoliticusUSA (which is a website I formerly respected and read regularly) as a Sarah Palin supporter and a radical Christian. (Shesupported Palin when she was 17, and no longer does now that she is 24not that it matters since Black Sarah Palin supporters have a right to protest being gunned down in the streets just as much as any other Black person; and she is an evangelical Christian, but not a right-wing evangelical Christian.)

In addition, a group of progressives have been attempting to discredit and smear me by digging through my work history as a junior associate in a law firmworking on foreclosure cases for banks, tweeting screenshots of court documents they dug upand paid for!on PACER, and penning blog poststhat refer to me as a former foreclosure litigator instead of referencing the work that I have been doing for the past six years, which is racial and reproductive justice activism. These progressivestwo of whom, Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal, are respected journalists in the movement for Palestinian liberationthought it reasonable to attack and criticize me for progressing from the corporate work that I did for banks in 2009 to social justice.

All of the above is just a tiny sample of the ongoing harassment of Black people on social media by Sanders fanatics.

These are the same people who will swear up and down that they are your allies, right up until the protest for Black lives inconveniences them in some way or they disagree with the activists tactics.

It boggles the mind.

To those primarily white and non-Black progressives spreading conspiracy theories about #BlackLivesMatter being funded by Soros or paid by the Clinton campaign as if it is so unfathomable that a group of Black women would be politically savvy enough to organize protests without backing from a rich white savior like Soros or the ClintonsI can only say that your behavior is fundamentally anti-progressive and practically indistinguishable from the behavior of your average Tea Partier or Rush Limbaugh enthusiast.

And to those white and non-Black progressives who are not buying into the more outlandish conspiracy theories, but are nevertheless criticizing the protests as rude, ineffective, stupid, or inconvenient, and who have penned articles offering entirely unwanted and unneeded advice to these brave Black women, I will only say this: Your opinion doesnt matter.

As Monique Teal recently wrote for Daily Kos,

Posting that you dont understand the strategy behind a tactic exposes you as clinging to white supremacy.Allies dont decide the strategy of an oppressed group, they support the strategy said group develops. Period.Stop telling us that we need your validation of our humanity.Because thats what youre saying every time you talk about strategy. You can house your privilege in a thousand ways but ultimately, telling people to shut up because you dont like what they are saying and how they are organizing makes you an oppressor.

You may be inclined to point to disagreement among Black people about the tactics of the #BlackLivesMatter activists and glom on to that disagreement to voice your own disagreement.

Dont.

There is certainly disagreement within the movement about tactics, but thats a conversation to be had by and among Black people about the liberation of Black people. Its simply not your place.

That is not to say that we as Black people do not welcome white allies. Of course we do. But that allyship cannot be conditioned upon respectability politics or upon Black people acting in a way that makes you comfortable or else. Thats not allyship. Thats a threat.

If you intend to fight with us for our lives, you cannot wield your allyship as a Sword of Damocles to be dropped on our heads as soon as #BlackLivesMatter activists protest, in your view, the wrong candidate, at the wrong time, in the wrong space.

I have seen far too many fragile white progressives frustratedly exclaim, Youve lost an ally to your cause!

First, allyship is not an identity that can be self-declared. Being an ally is a process. And it can be a grueling and unpleasant process, especially for those who have never had to wrestle with decentering whiteness and centering Blackness instead.

Second, if you are truly a white ally, you recognize that #BlackLivesMatter isnt our cause. Its a cause for social justice. Its your cause too. And if you believe that threatening to retract your support is a viable threat, know this: It is not. It is actually a relief because when push comes to shove, Black people need white allies who will be in the trenches with us, not fair-weather audience participants.

I understand that this may be hard for some of you to read. You may be angry at me. You may feel diminished because you are likely accustomed to the warm blanket of whiteness in progressive spaces, and are resistant to centering Black lives and Black issues. Some of you have never been told that your opinion doesnt matter. And your initial reaction may be outrage or to think that Im racist or that I hate white people.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Besides, the issue is not whether I or any #BlackLivesMatter activist or supporter hates white people. The issue, as Seattle protester and activist Marissa Johnson so succinctly put it in her radio interview with This Week in Blackness Prime(which you can check out in the video below), is whether or not you love Black people and are personally accountable to Black people.

Loving Black people is different than not hating Black people. Loving Black people is different than not standing in opposition to Black people. Loving Black people is different than tolerating Black people. If you love Black people and you, as a non-Black progressive, believe that #BlackLivesMatter is your cause, then fight with us. If you dont or youre not sure, then we will fight on without you. But believe me: The fight will continue. The disruptions will continue. The demands for recognition that our lives matter will continue.

The bottom line is this: #BlackLivesMatter activists simply do not have time to deal with white fragility. It may sound harsh, but Black lives matter more than white feelings. We are dying in the street. 314 of us so far since the killing of Mike Brownon August 9, 2014. Our community is in crisis.

By all indications, Bernie Sanders recognizes that our community is in crisis.

You should follow his lead.

I want to be as enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders as many of you are. But for that to happen, the harassment that I and many others are facing at the hands of his overzealous supporters must end.

More here:
fellow white progressives - rewire.news

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pictured here on Tuesday, March 3, has become one of the most powerful people in Washington. Here's a look at her life and career through the years.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Before she married Bill Clinton, she was Hillary Rodham. Here, Rodham talks about student protests in 1969, which she supported in her commencement speech at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Massachusetts.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Rodham, center, a lawyer for the Rodino Committee, and John Doar, left, chief counsel for the committee, bring impeachment charges against President Richard Nixon in the Judiciary Committee hearing room at the U.S. Capitol in 1974.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton helps first lady Rosalynn Carter on a campaign swing through Arkansas in June 1979. Also seen in the photo is Hillary Clinton, center background.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Bill Clinton embraces his wife shortly after a stage light fell near her on January 26, 1992. They talk to Don Hewitt, producer of the CBS show "60 Minutes."

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

With Hillary, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton waves to the crowd at his victory party after winning the Illinois primary on March 17, 1992.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton wave to supporters at the Chautauqua Institution in Chautauqua, New York, after they gave speeches on family values on August 23, 1992.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton gestures at a campaign rally November 3, 1992, in Denver. After taking office, President Clinton chose his wife to head a special commission on health care reform, the most significant public policy initiative of his first year in office.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Bill and Hillary Clinton have a laugh together on Capitol Hill in 1993.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton pours herself a cup of tea in 1993 while testifying to the Senate Education and Labor Committee about health care reform.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton speaks at George Washington University on September 10, 1993, in Washington during her husband's first term.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton waves to the media on January 26, 1996, as she arrives at federal court in Washington for an appearance before a grand jury. The first lady was subpoenaed to testify as a witness in the investigation of the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Hillary Clinton looks on as President Clinton discusses the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on January 26, 1998.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Hillary and Bill Clinton arrive at Foundry United Methodist Church on August 16, 1998, in Washington. He became the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury when he testified via satellite about the Lewinsky matter.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton shakes hands during a St. Patrick's Day parade in the Sunnyside neighborhood of Queens, New York, on March 5, 2000.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton waves to the crowd as she arrives on the stage at the Democratic National Convention on August 14, 2000, in Los Angeles.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton campaigns for a Senate seat October 25, 2000, at Grand Central Station in New York.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Hillary Clinton is sworn in as a senator of New York in a re-enactment ceremony with, from left, President Clinton, nephew Tyler, daughter Chelsea, brother Hugh Rodham, mother Dorothy Rodham and Vice President Al Gore on January 3, 2001, in Washington.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Andrew Cuomo, Eliot Spitzer and Clinton celebrate with a crowd of Democratic supporters after their wins in various races November 7, 2006, in New York.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton speaks during a post-primary rally on January 8, 2007, at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

The Clintons pay a visit to the 92nd annual Hopkinton State Fair in Contoocook, New Hampshire, on September 2, 2007.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton speaks at a campaign rally September 2, 2007, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. She was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton addresses a question during a debate with other Democratic presidential candidate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, on September 26, 2007. Also pictured are U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, left, and former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Felipe Bravo, left, and Christian Caraballo are covered with Hillary Clinton stickers in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, on January 8, 2008.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton campaigns in Council Bluffs, Iowa, with her daughter, Chelsea, on January 1, 2008, two days ahead of the January 3 state caucus.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton waves as she speaks to supporters at the National Building Museum on June 7, 2008, in Washington. After pulling out of the presidential race, Clinton thanked her supporters and urged them to back Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Obama and Clinton talk on the plane on their way to a Unity Rally in Unity, New Hampshire, on June 27, 2008.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Obama watches Clinton address the Democratic National Convention on August 26, 2008. The two endured a long, heated contest for the 2008 nomination.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Sen. Charles Schumer, left, looks toward Secretary of State designate Clinton as Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Sen. John Kerry, center, looks on during nomination hearings January 13, 2009, on Capitol Hill.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton testifies during her confirmation hearing for secretary of state on January 13, 2009, in Washington.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton, as secretary of state, dances with a local choir while visiting the Victoria Mxenge Housing Project in Philippi, a township on the outskirts of Cape Town, South Africa, on August 8, 2009.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton looks through binoculars toward North Korea during a visit to an observation post July 21, 2010, at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton walks up the steps to her aircraft as she leaves a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on July 23, 2010, in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Hillary and Bill Clinton pose on the day of their daughter's wedding to Marc Mezvinsky on July 31, 2010, in Rhinebeck, New York.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

U.S. President Barack Obama and Clinton observe a moment of silence before a NATO meeting November 19, 2010, in Lisbon, Portugal.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton listens as Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu makes a brief statement November 29, 2010, before a bilateral meeting at the State Department in Washington.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton shakes hands with a child during an unannounced walk through Tahrir Square in Cairo on March 16, 2011.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Clinton and members of Obama's national security team receive an update on the Osama bin Laden mission May 1, 2011, in the Situation Room of the White House.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton checks her personal digital assistant prior to departing Malta on October 18, 2011.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton dances while in Cartagena, Colombia, on April 15, 2012.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton enjoys a beer at Cafe Havana in Cartagena, Colombia, on April 15, 2012.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton appears with little makeup during an event in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on May 6, 2012. She tells CNN, "I feel so relieved to be at the stage I'm at in my life right now ... Because you know if I want to wear my glasses, I'm wearing my glasses. If I want to wear my hair back I'm pulling my hair back. You know at some point it's just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention."

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton speaks as Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai listens during a news conference at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, on July 7, 2012.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton arrives at Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel on July 15, 2012.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton looks on as Obama makes a statement in response to the attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya on September 12, 2012.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton applauds Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi during a ceremony where Suu Kyi was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal on September 19, 2012.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Bill Clinton kisses his wife after introducing her at the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting on September 24, 2012, in New York City.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Clinton shakes hands with Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, while attending a reception with Prince William, second from right, in New York in December.

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight

Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gestures before speaking to supporters Saturday, June 13 on Roosevelt Island in New York, in a speech promoted as her formal presidential campaign debut.

Originally posted here:
Buzz grows over Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton VP

General Contact Information:

Democratic Party of Georgia P.O. Box 89202 Atlanta, GA 30312

Phone: (678) 278-2016

Media Inquiries: (678) 278-2016 x 302

501 Pulliam Street, Suite 400 Atlanta GA 30312

To report issues, errors or suggest changes to this website, please email michael [at] georgiademocrat.org

Note: Please change [at] to @ on email addresses before sending.

Executive DirectorRebecca DeHart 678-278-2016 ext. 303 rebecca [at] georgiademocrat.org

Communications Director Michael Smith 678-278-2016 ext. 302 michael [at] georgiademocrat.org

Director of Finance and Compliance John Buckner 678-278-2016 ext. 320 johnb [at] georgiademocrat.org

Votebuilder AdministratorJeff Totty 678-278-2016 ext. 306 jeff [at] georgiademocrat.org

Canvass Director Todd Hendricks 678-278-2016 ext. 310 todd [at] georgiademocrat.org

Political Director Kendra Cotton 678-278-2016 ext. 305 kendra [at] georgiademocrat.org

County Affairs Director Melva Steps 678-278-2016 ext. 319 melva [at] georgiademocrat.org

FieldDirector Amanda Ford 678-278-2016 ext. 506 amanda [at] georgiademocrat.org

Deputy FieldDirector Chrystian Woods 678-278-2016 ext. 309 chrystian [at] georgiademocrat.org

Read more:
Contact Us | Georgia Democrats

CHAPTER IV. THE USE OF CONCEPTS Having observed the several steps or stages of a concept, let us now consider the use and misuse of the latter. At first glance it would appear difficult to misuse a concept, but a little consideration will show that people very commonly fall into error regarding their concepts. For instance, a child perceives a horse, a cow or a sheep and hears its elders apply the term animal to it. This term is perfectly correct, although symbolizing only a very general classification or generalization. But, the child knowing nothing of the more limited and detailed classification begins to generalize regarding the animal.

For instance, a child perceives a horse, a cow or a sheep and hears its elders apply the term animal to it.

This term is perfectly correct, although symbolizing only a very general classification or generalization. But, the child knowing nothing of the more limited and detailed classification begins to generalize regarding the animal. To it, accordingly, an animal is identical with the dog or the cow, the sheep or the horse, as the case may be, and when the term is used the child thinks that all animals are similar to the particular animal seen. Later on, when it hears the term animal applied to a totally different looking creature, it thinks that a mistake has been made and a state of confusion occurs. Or, even when a term is applied within narrower limits, the same trouble occurs. The child may hear the term dog applied to a mastiff, and it accordingly forms a concept of dog identical with the qualities and attributes of the mastiff. Later, hearing the same term applied to a toy-terrier, it becomes indignant and cries out that the latter is no dog but is something entirely different. It is not until the child becomes acquainted with the fact that there are many kinds of creatures in the general category of dog that the latter term becomes fully understood and its appropriate concept is intelligently formed. Thus we see the importance of the step of Presentation.

In the same way the child might imagine that because some particular man had red hair and long whiskers, all men were red-haired and long-whiskered. Such a child would always form the concept of man as a creature possessed of the personal qualities just mentioned. As a writer once said, readers of current French literature might imagine that all Englishmen were short, dumpy, red-cheeked and irascible, and that all Englishwomen had great teeth and enormous feet; also that readers of English literature might imagine that all Frenchmen were like monkeys, and all Frenchwomen were sad coquettes. In the same way many American young people believe that all Englishmen say Dont you know and all Englishwomen constantly ejaculate: Fancy! Also that every Englishman wears a monocle. In the same way, the young English person, from reading the cheap novels of his own country, might well form the concept of all Americans as long-legged, chin-whiskered and big-nosed, saying Waal, I want to know; I reckon; and Du tell; while they tilted themselves back in a chair with their feet on the mantelpiece. The concept of a Western man, entertained by the average Eastern person who has never traveled further West than Buffalo, is equally amusing. In the same way, we have known Western people who formed a concept of Boston people as partaking of a steady and continuous diet of baked beans and studiously reading Browning and Emerson between these meals.

Halleck says: A certain Norwegian child ten years old had the quality white firmly imbedded in his concept man. Happening one day to see a negro for the first time, the child refused to call him a man until the negros other qualities compelled the child to revise his concept and to eliminate whiteness. If that child should ever see an Indian or a Chinaman, the concept would undergo still further revision. A girl of six, reared with an intemperate father and brothers, had the quality of drunkenness firmly fixed in her concept of man. A certain boy kept, until the age of eleven, trustworthiness in his concept of man. Another boy, until late in his teens thought that man was a creature who did wrong not from determination but from ignorance, that any man would change his course to the right path if he could but understand that he was going wrong. Happening one day to hear of a wealthy man who was neglecting to provide comforts for his aged mother in her last sickness, the boy concluded that the man did not know his mothers condition. When he informed the man, the boy was told to mind his own business. The same day he heard of some politicians who had intentionally cheated the city in letting a contract and he immediately revised his concept. It must be borne in mind that most of our concepts are subject to change during our entire life; that at first they are made only in a tentative way; that experience may show us, at any time, that they have been erroneously formed, that we have, abstracted too little or too much, made this class too wide or too narrow, or that here a quality must be added or there one taken away.

Let us now consider the mental processes involved in the formation and use of a concept. We have first, as we have seen, the presentation of the crude material from which the concept must be formed. Our attention being attracted to or directed toward an object, we notice its qualities and properties. Then we begin a process of comparison of the object perceived or of our perception of it. We compare the object with other objects or ideas in our mind, noting similarities and differences and thereby leading towards classification with similar objects and opposed dissimilar ones. The greater the range of other objects previously perceived, the greater will be the number of relations established between the new object or idea and others. As we advance in experience and knowledge, the web of related objects and ideas becomes more intricate and complex. The relations attaching to the childs concept of horse is very much simpler than the concept of the experienced adult. Then we pass on to the step of analysis, in which we separate the qualities of the object and consider them in detail. The act of abstraction is an analytical process. Then we pass on to the step of synthesis, in which we unite the materials gathered by comparison and analysis, and thus form a general idea or concept regarding the object. In this process we combine the various qualities discerned by comparison and analysis, and grouping them together as in a bundle, we tie them together with the string of synthesis and thus have a true general conception. Thus from the first general conception of horse as a simple thing, we notice first that the animal has certain qualities lacking in other things and certain others similar to other things; then we analyze the various qualities of the horse, recognized through comparison, until we have a clear and distinct idea of the various parts, qualities and properties of the horse; then we synthesize, and joining together these various conceptions of the said qualities, we at last form a clear general concept of the horse as he is, with all his qualities. Of course, if we later discover other qualities attached to the horse, we add these to our general synthesized conceptour concept of horse is enlarged.

Of course these various steps in the formation and use of a concept are not realized as distinct acts in the consciousness, for the processes are largely instinctive and subconscious, particularly in the case of the experienced individual. The subconscious, or habit mind, usually attends to these details for us, except in instances in which we deliberately apply the will to the task, as in cases of close study, in which we take the process from the region of the involuntary and place it in the voluntary category. So closely related and blended are these various steps of the process, that some authorities have disputed vigorously upon the question as to which of the two steps, comparison or analysis, precedes the other. Some have claimed that analysis must precede comparison, else how could one compare without having first analyzed the things to be compared. Others hold that comparison must precede analysis, else how could one note a quality unless he had his attention drawn to it by its resemblance to or difference from qualities in other objects. The truth seems to lie between the two ideas, for in some cases there seems to be a perception of some similarity or difference before any analysis or abstraction takes place; while in others there seems to be an analysis or abstraction before comparison is possible. In this book we have followed the arrangement favored by the latest authorities, but the question is still an open one to many minds.

As we have seen, the general concept once having been formed, the mind proceeds to classify the concept with others having general qualities in common. And, likewise, it proceeds to generalize from the classification, assuming certain qualities in certain classes. Then we proceed to make still further generalizations and classifications on an ascending and widening scale, including seeming resemblances less marked, until finally we embrace the object with other objects in as large a class as possible as well as in as close and limited a sub-class as possible. As Brooks says: Generalization is an ascending process. The broader concept is regarded as higher than the narrower concept; a concept is considered higher than a percept; a general idea stands above a particular idea. We thus go up from particulars to generals; from percepts to concepts; from lower concepts to higher concepts. Beginning down with particular objects, we rise from them to the general idea of their class. Having formed a number of lower classes, we compare them as we did individuals and generalize them into higher classes. We perform the same process with these higher classes, and thus proceed until we are at last arrested in the highest class, Being. Having reached the pinnacle of generalization, we may descend the ladder by reversing the process through which we ascend.

From this process of generalization, or synthesis, we create from our simple concepts our general concepts. Some of the older authorities distinguished between these two classes by terming the former conceptions, and reserving the term concepts for the general concepts. Brooks says of this: The products of generalization are general ideas called concepts. We have already discussed the method of forming conceptions and now consider the nature of the concept itself. A concept is a general idea. It is a general notion which has in it all that is common to its own class. It is a general scheme which embraces all the individuals of the class while it resembles in all respects none of its class. Thus my conception of a quadruped has in it all four-footed animals, but it does not correspond in all respects to any particular animals; my conception of a triangle embraces all triangles, but does not agree in details with any particular triangle. The general conception cannot be made to fit exactly any particular object, but it teems with many particulars. These points may be illustrated with the concepts horse, bird, color, animal, etc.

So we may begin to perceive the distinction and difference between a concept and a mental image. This distinction, and the fact that a concept cannot be imaged, is generally difficult for the beginner. It is important that one should have a clear and distinct understanding regarding this point, and so we shall consider it further in the following chapter.

As we have said, a concept cannot be imagedcannot be used as the subject of a mental image. This statement is perplexing to the student who has been accustomed to the idea that every conception of the mind is capable of being reproduced in the form of a mental image. But the apparently paradoxical statement is seen as quite simple when a little consideration is given to it.

For instance, you have a distinct general concept of animal. You know what you mean when you say or think, animal. You recognize an animal when you see one and you understand what is meant when another uses the word in conversation. But you cannot form a mental image of the concept, animal. Why? Because any mental image you might form would be either a picture of some particular animal or else a composite of the qualities of several animals. Your concept is too broad and general to allow of a composite picture of all animals. And, in truth, your concept is not a picture of anything that actually exists in one particular, but an abstract idea embracing the qualities of all animals. It is like the algebraic xa symbol for something that exists, but not the thing itself.

As Brooks says: A concept cannot be represented by a concrete image. This is evident from its being general rather than particular. If its color, size or shape is fixed by an image, it is no longer general but particular. And Halleck says: It is impossible to image anything without giving that image individual marks. The best mental images are so definite that a picture could be painted from them. A being might come under the class man and have a snub nose, blonde hair, scanty eyebrows, and no scar on his face. The presence of one of these individual peculiarities in the concept man would destroy it. If we form an image of an apple, it must be either of a yellow, red, green, or russet apple, either as large as a pippin or as small as a crab-apple. A boy was asked what he thought of when apple was mentioned. He replied that he thought of a big, dark-red, apple with a bad pot on one side, near the top. That boy could image distinctly, but his power of forming concepts was still in its infancy.

So we see that while a mental image must picture the particular and individual qualities, properties and appearances of some particular unit of a class, a concept can and must contain only the class qualitiesthat is, the qualities belonging to the entire class. The general concept is as has been said a general idea a general notion which has in it all that is common to its own class. And it follows that a general idea of this kind cannot be pictured. A picture must be of some particular thing, while a concept is something above and higher than particular things. We may picture a man, but we cannot picture Man the concept of the race. A concept is not a reproduction of the image of a thing, but on the contrary is an idea of a class of things. We trust that the student will consider this point until he arrives at a clear understanding of the distinction, and the reason thereof.

But, while a concept is incapable of being pictured mentally as an image, it is true that some particular representative of a class may be held in the mind or imagination as an idealized object, as a general representative of the class, when we speak or think of the general term or concept, providing that its real relation to the concept is recognized. These idealized objects, however, are not conceptsthey are percepts reproduced by the memory. It is important, however, to all who wish to convey their thought plainly, that they be able to convert their concepts into idealized representative objects. Otherwise, they tend to become too idealistic and abstract for common comprehension. As Halleck well says: We should in all cases be ready to translate our concepts, when occasion requires, into the images of those individuals which the concept represents. A concept means nothing except in reference to certain individuals. Without them it could never have had existence and they are entitled to representation. A man who cannot translate his concepts into definite images of the proper objects, is fitted neither to teach, preach, nor practice any profession. There was, not long ago, a man very fond of talking about fruit in the abstract; but he failed to recognize an individual cranberry when it was placed before him. A humorist remarked that a certain metaphysician had such a love for abstractions, and such an intense dislike for concrete things, as to refuse to eat a concrete peach when placed before him.

In the beginning many students are perplexed regarding the difference between a percept and a concept. The distinction is simple when properly considered. A percept is: the object of an act of perception; that which is perceived. A concept is: a mental representation. Brooks makes the following distinction: A percept is the mental product of a real thing; a concept is a mere idea or notion of the common attributes of things. A percept represents some particular object; a concept is not particular, but general. A percept can be described by particulars; a concept can be described only by generals. The former can usually be represented by an image, the latter cannot be imagined, it can only be thought. Thus one is able to image the percept of a particular horse which has been perceived; but he is unable to image correctly the concept of horse as a class or generic term.

In connection with this distinction between perception and conception, we may as well consider the subject of apperception, a term favored by many modern psychologists, although others steadfastly decline to recognize its necessity or meaning and refuse to employ it. Apperception may be defined as: perception accompanied by comprehension; perception accompanied by recognition. The thing perceived is held to be comprehended or recognizedthat is, perceived in a new sense, by reason of certain previously acquired ideas in the mind. Halleck explains it as: the perception of things in relation to the ideas which we already possess. It follows that all individuals possessed of equally active organs of perception, and equally active attention, will perceive the same thing in the same way and in the same degree. But the apperception of each individual will differ and vary according to his previous experience and training, temperament and taste, habit and custom. For instance, the familiar story of the boy who climbed a tree and watched the passers-by, noting their comments. The first passer-by noticing the tree, says aloud: That would make a good stick of timber. Good morning, Mr. Carpenter, said the boy. The next man said: That tree has fine bark. Good morning, Mr. Tanner, said the boy. Another said, I bet theres a squirrels nest up in that tree. Good morning, Mr. Hunter, said the boy.

The woman sees in a bird something pretty and cunning. The hunter sees in it something to kill. The ornithologist sees it as something of a certain genus and species, and perhaps also as something appropriate for his collection. The farmer perceives it to be something destructive of either insects or crops. A thief sees a jail as something to be dreaded; an ordinary citizen, something useful for confining objectionable people; a policeman, something in the line of his business. And so on, the apperception differing upon the previous experience of the individual. In the same way the scientist sees in an animal or rock many qualities of which the ordinary person is ignorant. Our training, experience, prejudices, etc., affect our apperception.

And so, we see that in a measure our concepts are determined not only by our simple perceptions, but also materially by our apperceptions. We conceive things not only as they are apparent to our senses, but also as colored and influenced by our previous impressions and ideas. For this reason we find widely varying concepts of the same things among different individuals. Only an absolute mind could form an absolute concept.

See more here:
Social Networking Lab: Search Engine & Social Media ...

"I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, which first aired on "The Lead."

The Democratic presidential front-runner did not elaborate which men she was referring to.

"I think the only card she has is the women's card," Trump said Tuesday night in New York. "She has got nothing else going. Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she would get 5% of the vote."

Clinton said she had no intention to respond.

"I'm not going to deal with their temper tantrums or their bullying or their efforts to try to provoke me," she said of the men she had experience with. "He can say whatever he wants to say about me, I could really care less. I'm going to stand up for what I think the American people need and want in the next president."

The former secretary of state also repeated her line from her victory speech after Tuesday night's near sweep of the Northeast primaries, saying if the "women's card" means sticking up for women, "deal me in."

Friday night, Amanda Renteria, the Clinton campaign's political director, walked back Clinton's use of "reservation," a term she said had "some very offensive roots" to Native Americans.

"About the use of an expression today that has some very offensive roots...Divisive language has no place in our politics," Renteria tweeted.

She added, "@HillaryClinton meant no disrespect to Native Americans. She wants this election to be about lifting people up, not tearing them down."

Coming off her big primary night Tuesday, Clinton declined to call herself the "presumptive nominee" as Trump did, but she did say she believes she will win the nomination.

"I consider myself as someone who's on the path, and obviously I'm very far ahead in both the popular vote and the delegate count, so I think the path leads to the nomination," Clinton said. "But, you know, I'm going to keep competing."

She also said she expects Sanders to work with her on planning the Democratic National Convention and the platform the party will adopt at it, and was quick to praise him and his supporters.

She said even after a race that grew increasingly bitter, she expects the two candidates to come together, like Clinton did with President Barack Obama when she lost the primary to him in 2008. She endorsed Obama "immediately" after dropping out in June, she said.

"I was pleased when Sen. Sanders said the other day he's going to work tirelessly, seven days a week, to make sure that Donald Trump is not president and I really welcome that," Clinton said. "We had run a really tough race (in 2008) all the way to the end but I endorsed him, I began working for him, and of course we talked about the platform."

She also suggested Sanders supporters who say they cannot support Clinton will come around.

"I think when I dropped, I think the polling was that 40% of my supporters said they would not support Sen. Obama. Thankfully, the vast majority of them did, so this is a natural kind of process that I think will play itself out," Clinton said.

But she said, speaking from experience, Sanders will see the writing on the wall.

"There comes a time when you have to look at the reality," Clinton said. "In fact, in '08 I was much closer in both popular vote and pledged delegates to Sen. Obama than is the case right now, but eventually I just decided that I had to withdraw and support Sen. Obama because the goal was to make sure we had a Democrat in the White House."

Though Clinton wouldn't respond directly to Trump's attacks on her, personally, she did go after him on a number of fronts.

She criticized his foreign policy as "reckless, loose, dangerous" and said he is "really insulting to women," casting doubt that Sanders supporters would migrate to him over her when he also doesn't believe in climate change or raising the minimum wage.

Clinton also derided Trump for what she characterized as a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS and said she found his comments lately "disturbing."

"I don't think loose talk about loose nukes, I don't think turning our back on our strongest allies, I don't think pretending you have some sort of secret plan is a very smart way to go forward in leading the world, which is what we must do," Clinton said.

She also laughed when Tapper asked if at Trump's wedding to Melania in 2005 Clinton ever imagined she'd be running against him in a presidential election, adding she didn't think she'd be running.

"Never crossed my mind, no. Never crossed my mind," she said.

CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.

Read this article:
Hillary Clinton: Experience with men 'off the reservation ...