- Posts: 909
The Problem with Black Lives Matter
People love generalizing the movement, and anyone who operates within the same spheres of thought and action as so-called SJWs (horrible terminology to use). However the generalization doesn't help. There are very important points being made within the BLM movement and similar spheres of thought and action, and while I find many of the more aggressive elements to be deeply troubling, I personally have attempted to not internalize a response to those elements and rather focus on their larger constructive potential and nature.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
ZealotX wrote: Sure. First of all, racism is often conflated with prejudice. Prejudice is often based on experiences while racism is a power dynamic.
Sure, but power is contextual to the relationships between individuals and there are many different kinds of it The city bus drive has more institutional power than anyone else on the bus regardless of any of their races. But if someone draws a pistol, that person holds greater power of violence than anyone else on the bus, until the police arrive. If a hostage negotiator shows up, he will be attempting to exercise his power of articulation, and persuasion to overcome the hostage takers greater power of violence. As long as the guy with the gun doesnt shoot, the negotiator has power of command. Soon as a shot is fired command goes over to the entry team commander. None of these powers are predicated on race.
If i apply for a loan at the bank or for benefits with a government agency, there are people who work in those settings of all races who have greater institutional power than i do. Greater access and also greater understanding of a particular environment that is important to me. I am truely under their power, regardless of our racial differences.
Second, let's say that you don't like me because I'm taller than you. This is about as stupid as color. If you keep attacking me, calling me names, refusing to hire me, etc. because I'm taller than you and my emotional reaction is to hate you then my hatred is more about your mistreatment. I don't hate you because you're shorter than me. I hate you because you suck as a human so much to hate me over something so stupid as height. Yes, you happen to be shorter and if enough short people seemed to feel the same way as you I would be more critical of shorter people because of my experience of dealing with the mistreatment/oppression of shorter people. But my reaction isn't stupid. It's a reaction to how I'm being treated where as the treatment is not a reaction to anything. It is created from an inflated sense of self (or over reaction to one's own inferiority) that comes to believe it is superior to others.
Which is a perfecty valid argument for why you have every right to be angry at every single person who mistreated you, and to be skeptical of others who resemble that person. But it doesnt prove that blacks cant be racist.
if a white kid gets beat up by a group of black kids because the black kids parents taught their children that white people deserve to be beaten up because they are all devils or something, thats racism: a power dynamic where the powerful party inflicted injustice on the less powerful party as a result of racial prejudice. Its just as much an act of racism as it is when white kids beat up a black kid because the white kids parents taught their children that black people deserve to be beaten up. Power is contextual.
I'm sure you can find black people who think they're superior to whites, but again, this is a reaction that wouldn't exist on its own.
Bigotry and "in group vs out group" hostility is natural to every race and culture.. its a human thing not a white thing..
but i agree that the historical treatment of blacks in usa was terrible and i dont blame black people for being pissed off and for wanting equality.. maybe we should leave it at that.
The problem with "Reverse racism" is that whites often use it as an example to say "See... you guys do the same thing" which allows them to continue the status quo. The status quo is the problem.
To my knowledge, the term "reverse discrimination" is related to institutional policies like affirmative action, where persons of a minority group are given preferential treatment over individuals from a majority group in the context of some specific institutional setting. Whereas "reverse racism" just means any act of racism by a member of a minority group to a member of a majority group.
I do agree that there have been whites who have used "reverse racism/discrimination" to paint an unrealistic picture of a twisted kind of equality. Im also willing to call that out when i see it, but real equality needs to be the end game and youre not gonna get that holding on to the idea that only whites can be racist. That view defies logic, is inherently double standarded, and will perpetuate racism from all sides.
Hypothetically the standards need to be the same for everyone. In certain contexts you can say the opportunities arent the same and thats why the standards cant be the same. Which leads to the conclusion that increasing access of economic opportunity to the black community is the real solution to racism. In a market driven society, Money + Time = Equality
Which has nothing to do with protesting or rioting
Please Log in to join the conversation.
It should all be replaced with the sentence: The problem with BLM, is that all they do is generate awareness, and do not take up this opportunity to actually research how to resolve the issue. They don't put efforts forth in changing local laws, they just protest. That's the problem, they offer no solutions and just expect others to resolve the issue because they want it resolved.
But they have to get into Police Academies and find out what is being taught, undergo training exercises and see if there are other options to situations. They have to put forward real effort into researching what methods can be employed to ensure people are properly evaluated for their jobs, etc.
If they want to see change, they have to get off the streets and into the field to help Police find other methods, build programs that help reduce people's "want" to commit crime. Etc. It's not something you just protest away.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
ZealotX wrote: You asked where does the teaching/reforming/healing/etc. begin? Depending on where YOU are, YOU, by virtue of being different, change racism and the form it takes. Black people cannot solve this problem because it is self replicated in white culture. Let me give you a real example of something I personally experienced this spring.
A little white kid said something about my fiance's son being black and "white people are better".
I could have reacted but I held my peace. The white kid said this, not just in front of him, but in front of me and in front of his father. We were all within 5 feet of this. His father said nothing; offered nothing in the way of any apology, nor did I expect one because clearly that's most likely where he got it from. And if there was any correction, we didn't see it and it was after the fact and probably had more to do with saying it in front of us.
I would love for my children (my fiance's son is only 12) to grow up in a world without this perverse way of thinking but nothing I could say would have changed that kid's mind because that was parental authority being passed down. It was part of that child's culture just as much as the English language. So what am I supposed to do? What can I do? I can only tell you my story in hopes that your ears aren't deaf and hope that you have greater influence over kids like that than I, "the inferior one", could have. It has to come from white people.
Absolutely not. But I cannot prevent them from forming negative feelings if they have consistently bad interactions with them. Fortunately mine don't and they have all had/have white friends who I assume don't treat them as inferior.
The solution could only be the influence of black people getting the attention of white people so that white people use their influence to get the attention of the white people who are programmed not to listen to us and who don't care about us, to those to whom our lives truly do not matter, and influence them towards change or be a light for their children to show them that not all white people think they are superior to other humans and that what you own, or your socio-economic status, doesn't make you superior. I probably make more than that kid's father, but does it matter? At all? Absolutely not. Before BLM most black-white interactions were superficial because they did not deal with racial issues. So even if you think a black person is your friend, if they're not cool enough with you to talk about race, it's possible that they don't trust you that far based on a history of whites who didn't want to talk about it because they didn't care enough to or just wish the topic would just go away even though the effects of it are alive and well.
We say black lives matter only because, to some, we know they don't. Even if you believe saying ALL LIVES MATTER accomplishes the same thing; it doesn't. Because the fact that it was created to COUNTER the statement that black lives matter, means that it is designed to ignore, specifically, black lives as a racial group being actively and systematically oppressed. ALL LIVES are not being oppressed based on race. White men in suits are not stopped and frisked. There are no establishments that deny whites entry or service because you wear clothes thought to be part of white culture. No one shoots you because you're wearing a hoodie or playing loud music. ALL LIVES aren't faced with the same issues for the same reasons. And the statistics for UNARMED police shootings is evidence of this.
The Solutions of BLM are mostly related to policing. They have successfully pushed for policy changes and as a result more police are using body cams and there's more community oversight. These policy changes benefit white people too. So what it's called Black Lives Matter? What's the difference between us saying it and having to fill out "Black" or "African American" on application forms and documents? We don't know how that's being used. What we do know is when we give our children names that sound more "white" than "black" they have an easier time getting jobs. It's been proven. What's the solution? Again... influence. The best thing I can do is raise the level of consciousness around me and try to make other black people better - whom I have greater influence over, and hope that something I say in the presence of whites is able to cause one of you to say something different, do something different, to lessen the effect or hinder the reproduction of racism.
I wanted to take the time to hank you for the well thought out answer. I also appreciate the flattery, it does however, suck that I am considered different though as I'm simply being empathetic towards another human experience, but it simply came from doing something you mentioned in another post. I had a deep long conversation with my roommate (he was obviously black and also from the South Side of Chicago) in college about race. Interestingly enough it came from a discussion on a vibe I picked up from some gentlemen who came over to get green. I could tell they were unsavory to say the least, for perspective I spent a good amount of time selling (I do not anymore but everyone was young and only green, no other drugs), that means exposure to a different set of principles to judge upon. Criminals shouldn't really judge criminals but it becomes a safety issue when money and other stuff is involved. My assumption was right; but we had a deep conversation about what caused my predisposition in that situation. He decided my concern was founded in logic, but he also shared some experiences and ways of looking at racism I didn't really think of from my perspective along the way. "It's not the overt S$3T that get's to me, it's the subtle stuff that bothers me, like someone not meeting a gaze or someone assuming my course of action without relation." That was his statement was an eye opener. The assumption of socio-economic status by race is an example.
I applaud your temperance in the scenario above, I would have had a serious talk with my child about any statement like that (It was how I was raised). I run into stuff like this more than I would like to say, particularly, working in a suburban high-school setting. However, though I'm not the parent, so beyond letting them know they don't understand the experience and that maybe they should look a little open minded, or that they are just being stupid my influence on them is limited. However, influence I have to use none the less. I agree though that the solution does in a way start with me but in general it starts with all of us. We each have a role to play here and each of our actions should and need share a general attachment to one another. I can and have reached to those around me about racism it is the minimum I can do. I agree that the movement cannot police the whole of itself it is not possible in an movement/organization after certain size. However, word of mouth particularly now with social media holds a new power, so any uncultivated action by those in leadership (tend to be positive statements) and those not (the less positive ones that are very popularly thrown around) can be devistating or incredibly up lifting. With this in mind I think we need to look at why the most shocking and ignorant statements tend to sway public opinion and how to make that shift; that and education both in general and on different cultural perspective are where we can start in my opinion.
This dialogue here, though I am sure frustrating and painful to some, is incredibly important to keep going while it maintains its course of civil dialog with presentation of at least path ways to solutions. I appreciate the peacefulness of this thread and hope it continues; the more perspectives we each strive to understand the better. just never try to understand a perspective from your perspective, objectivity is key or you will become judgmental of given situation (history major in college.....) Thank you everyone for your contributions please keep it peaceful. Adder thanks for your contribution I think it helps to see an outside the US (it also, makes us define , think and consider the simpler parts of the dialog in the US (we don't tend to do this much in the US on issues that are difficult), when most the time we are arguing finer points with fervent passion) perspective on this too. This will not be without effect on emotions but the community will be better served by temperance here than flaring tempers (steps off soap box, takes soap box, burns soap box, realizes he's an a-hole for standing on it, then wonders how he got a wood soap box these days in the first place.)
In Peace and Respect,
Please Log in to join the conversation.
No, I literally mean people who aren't consciously aware of their own racist tendencies and who would not identify themselves as racists. Racism isn't a feeling or something that is always easily quantified. You may subconsciously treat one person better than another and justify it consciously with other things that have nothing to do with race. But if we could take every occurrence and measure the variables and come up with analytics of that person's actions we would, in some cases, find that a person's behavior changes when a black person is involved. For example, you can have a boss that consistently passes on giving a black employee a promotion. The first justification might be reasonable and professional. The second time they're passed over it might be because they like this other person better. The third time it might be some random memory of something they did that they didn't like. Meanwhile, the people being promoted may be less professional, less liked around to office, less professional, and make more mistakes. The boss may not even realize that there is subtle component in his decision making that is based on prejudice; based on prior thinking or ideas that have nothing to do with this person but rather their race.
OB1Shinobi: is it possible that you mean "ingrained racism"?
OB1Shinobi: being uncomfortable with people who are different and that you are unfamiliar with is not quite the same thing as being a racist.
Why are they different? What makes them different? Does race really make someone different? If I said I was uncomfortable around midgets, what would you think about me? Girls and boys are more different than 2 people of the same gender from different "races". Keep in mind that race is an invented construct. We weren't created at different times or different planets. The only difference is literally pigmentation. But is a blond uncomfortable around a brunette? Is a person with brown eyes (which can be white or black) uncomfortable around someone with blue eyes? Do you get what I'm saying? Why is it the only difference that seems to matter is a difference that was invented and is incredibly superficial. So what does this mean? In my opinion, it means that we MAGNIFY the difference when it comes to color and that magnification is caused by racism. Now maybe a white person is equally uncomfortable around Mexicans. However, they may not be uncomfortable with a white person from Spain, England, Holland, Russia, etc. They may never even ask or contemplate where that "other white person" comes from or where their genes came from. I was born in the US, not Africa. I watch the same shows, the same movies, have the same interests, etc. I should have more in common with white Americans than white people from South Africa and yet white people might feel more comfortable around Elon Musk than me. I love Elon Musk, btw. Just do. But how does one explain this racial discomfort if it is not racism? This also goes back to the point I made that you can be manipulated by real racists even if you're not racist yourself. Because the cultural ideas about black people (stereotypes) may get started by a racist but picked up by others who don't realize they're accepting a fundamentally racist idea. Sometimes, it is the stigmas and stereotypes that affect us more than overt racism. Most racism is not overt because there are consequences. I had white friends in school because I went to a mostly white school in my early elementary years. I had zero issues. I wasn't uncomfortable around my friends. I also had white friends in middle school and high school because I saw them as being the same as me. I only become less comfortable when I have reason to believe a person is racist because of what they may be thinking or saying behind my back. And honestly, that's what keeps a lot of black people at a distance. Those that kind of grow up with us? They're fine because we know them and they know us. A part of knowing us is knowing that we're not scary monsters who want to eat their children. Fear is what makes people uncomfortable. And people usually fear what they don't know. I have a solution for that. Explore. Get to know. Gain understanding. Then the next generation can be taught that we're all the same. Babies come out this way. We're the ones that teach them otherwise.
OB1Shinobi:i dont know your context for this statement so could you tell me what the word "racism" means to you?
is racism something that only white people are capable of, in your opinion?
1) they want white people to help support the movement,
OB1Shinobi: if this is in response to the "all lives matter" point then fair enough, especially since the group actually has the word "black" in its name, however
2) when you're building a group whose essential premise is justified by the assertion that racism is a problem, you undermine yourself by being racially exclusive. it suggests to observers that you actually are just fine with racism, so long as its only affecting some other race.
Why does having "black" in the name a problem? If I had a penny for every time a NON-RACIST police officer used the word "black" to describe a suspect, I'd have more money than Bill Gates. No one sees that as a problem. And when talking about a criminal it's no problem for the News to identify the suspect as "black". I think it's essential that black is in the name because that identifies who this problem is happening to. It's not happening to white people. You might say "yes it is! We have statistics too!" I repeat. It's not happening to white people.
The thing that's not happening to white people is being targeting based on race or ethnicity. What's not happening to white people are racially motivated beatings or shootings. If a racist cop pulls me over he's a racist cop. If the same cop pulls you over he's just a cop. That's the difference. He's not going to treat you the same way he treats me. The reason why this is essential to understand is because you cannot deal with racism in the police culture by ignoring the racial component. You have to begin screening racism out of police culture. You have to have consequences for using racially charged language that indicates how you think and process information. BLM isn't saying that cops are perfect other than this issue we are complaining about. BLM has no obligation to say "and this is how they treat the mentally challenged" even though that is an issue.
The more issues you put on the table the less will get done about any of them. And their effect will be diluted. Do you think we all have time to march for every issue in the world? Of course not. PETA is for the ethical treatment of animals, not people. So even if you disagree with their "priorities" and you want them to be about ethical treatment of all species, including human, there's nothing wrong with specializing in one cause. It seems that the only time people are not allowed to represent their own cause that hits closest to their home is when they're black. Nope. Not allowed to speak up for yourselves. You must speak up for ALL people. If you speak for yourselves we'll suddenly speak for all people just to speak over you but we won't really do anything about what we're protesting or push for any change that affects ALL lives.
The name of the organization isn't Black People who believe Black Lives Matter. It's JUST Black Lives Matter. Plenty of white people can agree that "Black Lives Matter". If you can agree then how are you not included? If PETA sends me a email asking for a signature or donation I don't have to be a Polar bear or an elephant to want to save polar bears and elephants. So when they say "please help us save polar bears" it would be kind of an asshole move on my part to angrily respond "WHAT ABOUT BLACK BEARS?!" No one's stopping anyone else from taking up the cause of Black Bears, is there? So why pit one against the other as if you're not allowed to fight for polar bears if you don't include black bears or brown bears?? BLM never said "please kill white people instead of us". BLM never made a case for when police violence is okay.
If I repost something about saving polar bears it's probably got something to do with Global Warming. That's not the same thing as me saying "Hey Black Bears. F#$k You guys. Seriously. And Brown Bears? Yeah, you guys can F off too." No one's saying this. So why, again, does it seem like black people are the only ones that aren't allowed to complain about something happening to them. RACISM. Do black people have to say "White Lives Matter" and hope some white organization will return the favor? When Christian Children's fund made all those commercials about helping starving people in Africa were they wrong because it's name wasn't inclusive of adults? Are there no starving adults in Africa? What about them? What about the elderly? And what about India or China? No one's starving in those continents? Doesn't criticizing Christian Children's fund sound stupid?
Were the people saying Blue Lives Matter seriously protesting Gang Members who shoot at the police? Seriously? No, they were only attacking BLM which has a history of shooting ZERO police officers. ALL LIVES MATTER and BLUE LIVES MATTER were a protest of the protesters. Can you look me in the eye and tell me that ALL LIVES MATTER was aimed at the Police??? If we're being honest you have to admit that it was aimed at BLM. So the purpose of these things should be clear. They were ONLY attacks. It was never about All lives mattering (even though it is syntactically and theoretically correct) or BLUE lives mattering because NONE of these people confronted the people who are actually guilty of endangering what they were supposedly standing for. Not to mention, DEATH ROW LIVES MATTER, OBAMACARE LIVES MATTER, TALIBAN LIVES MATTER, MUSLIM EXTREMISTS LIVES MATTER, right? Aren't the part of "ALL LIVES"????? But when same people on the news who support ALL LIVES MATTER almost wet themselves at the "beauty" of American bombs launching against their targets... what happened to ALL LIVES then? It's a BS argument and you're not supposed to realize that.
When I was in school I looked at myself and I didn't see a black person. I literally rebelled against the label because my skin is brown, not black. "Black" to me, seemed more like an exaggeration meant to denigrate everyone that looked like me. Later I fully embraced the label because it means more than a color and at the end of the day we don't change things by complaints, protests, etc. We change things by accepting reality. The reality is that there is a lot of racism in police culture because of socio-economic factors as well as white culture repeating it and proliferating it. Just do a google search for "black face" or "lynching". We're not trying to make this stuff up. We're simply trying to communicate what's been happening to us for many years which is why we, as a social group, do not trust the police which in turn makes their jobs harder and makes them less effective against crime. We're not pro-crime but if the police are criminals too and racism is institutionalized in our Criminal Justice system, then our reaction is a natural one. It's not about who's black and who isn't. We need to destroy racism. And if human beings don't want to help then okay, but why then attack the movement that's raising awareness and working for change? Unless you're against that change?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
ZealotX wrote: 7. Black people have had a different history with the police than whites. Period. There are whites that hate the police too but but the reason of race is unique to black people.
i agree with this as a matter of historical fact. yes police have targeted blacks more than other races. im with you.
but one of my complaints with the BLM movement is that they dont recognize the degree to which police brutality in its modern form, is to a great degree an issue of the culture being "police vs everyone else", and not merely "racist white police vs innocent black people"
OB1Shinobi, you're an intelligent person. What if I listed all of my criticisms about the Occupy Wall Street movement and said "For these reasons it should not exist". Occupy made a lot of mistakes. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth in the US? ABSOLUTELY. In many ways I believe this problem is bigger than racism by 10 times or more. But what were the demands of the movement? Do you remember? Did you ever know? And ultimately, what changed? What did Occupy accomplish? What if I told you that my criticisms against Occupy Wall Street were more important than the mission of Occupy Wall Street? What if I went out and publicly criticized it over and over. Would I be helping the cause? Or helping people to see that the movement is irrelevant because I think so? I'm okay with people having criticisms about BLM. The problem was that the criticisms of BLM were often simply attacks used to discredit and destroy the movement by people who didn't want it to exist. The people shouting All Lives Matter weren't trying to change the name of the organization. There was a comment form on their website where that could have been done. I used their comment form myself even. When someone wants to offer constructive criticism there is a way to do it. And you know the kind of criticism it is based on how it's given. These weren't just criticisms. There was a backlash against what they were protesting. One of the criticisms that I heard a lot about BLM was that "black people kill each other more than anyone else". That criticism has nothing to do with a name or someone not feeling included. That's someone saying that black people have a problem that whites do not and if they fix their own problem then maybe we'll listen or maybe we'll care. It is in effect, a justification to say that "black lives don't matter to me". That's what people were implying in their rhetoric. And that's why "Black Lives Matter" is the phrase that is needed because the reality is that to many people they do NOT matter and that's why not only do the police kill us, but that's why society ALLOWS THEM TO.
"Police Kill Too Many People—White and Black"
I agree with this, however, keep in mind that black people are much less of the population and no other group is targeted like we are. It's okay to suppress our votes. It's okay to admit that the war on drugs was largely about minorities. It's okay to stop and frisk us. And if you research Michael Wood you'll find out why he's my favorite (retired) police officer. He exposed a lot of institutional racism in policing and he's deadly honest about it. But the bottom line is that this is NOT THE SAME ISSUE. Trying to make it the same issue is missing the point.
maybe this is true but can you prove it? do you have some evidence other than your intuition?
mostly what i see these days is people going from the military to police force after they get back from the wars... then acting towards citizens with the same mindset that they had towards the iraqis: that of an occupying force.
I hate the way police are starting to get more military equipment. I don't want to live in a police state. But, there's no organization that I know of that is actively fighting this issue. If there was I would support it with donations. But the fact that it doesn't exist (to my knowledge) doesn't mean I can take another organization and criticize them for not being for my other issue. They are focused on their issue. Why shouldn't I hinder them unless I have a problem with their issue? We can't all focus on the same issue no more than we can all get the same college degree and work in the same field.
Proving it is the problem. We struggle to even prove that a white cop killing an unarmed black man has committed murder. Most of the time they get off scott free just like George Zimmerman who later proved that he was definitely the one who was more dangerous. Why? Because how do you get the proof? Who's responsible for getting the the proof? Who conducts investigations? You want the cops to police the cops? What about prosecutors? Judges? They're all friends. They don't want to go after each other. We could have a cop caught red handed (like Mark Furhman) and later he'll become a contributor for Fox News. But use your common sense. KKK members don't hang people so much now but often back in the day the Sheriff was a member of the klan. They had to wear hoods to protect their identities, not just from the police, but from the citizens knowing that they were police. These days, the only job in America that lets you beat, detain, fine, hasstle, lock up, take away their right to vote, and force into a condition that will burden their families, make them unhirable to many jobs, and affect their entire socio-economic future, is the job of Police Officer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that job will attract a lot of racists.
the same can be said for almost all cases of whites being killed by police... but not only does BLM ignore the full scope of police brutality, to make it even worse they seem to only want to riot and set things on fire when the cops kill someone who was asking for it- yes, asking for it.
Again... BLM is not about "police brutality". That is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization. BLM was always about the RACISM that is the source of racially motivated police brutality against black people. So yes, "police brutality" is an issue. But you can't force a different issue on someone else just because you don't like theirs. Again, I don't have to save black bears at the same time I'm saving polar bears. If black bears are endangered its not the same issue endangering polar bears. The solution for polar bears is not the same solution for black bears. Does that make sense?
No one who is unarmed is "really" asking for it. Furthermore, black people aren't in positions to report on the amount of whites getting killed by police. I'm sorry this happens too. I think PTSD does affect a lot of cops and they are more likely to shoot, in general, and even if they target more black people that doesn't mean whites wont get shot too. But no one is saying cops don't shoot whites. And ignoring it means that someone is bringing it to our attention and we don't care. The only reason it is brought to the attention of BLM and its supporters is to COUNTER the message and diminish what is happening to black people. I personally know and witnessed a case in which my local police department was forced to arrest a young black man who I knew and they did a fantastic job even though he was literally telling them to shoot him. Why? Because he has mental health issues and doesn't take his medicine and he's so influenced by a history of distrust of police and police killing young black men that now its part of his reaction. "You want to kill me? Then do it." Sometimes it's called defiance. That doesn't mean the person should be shot. Most police shoot out of fear or they just say they do in order to get away with it. In the same situations one cop shoots another cop in the same situation is somehow magically able to disarm the suspect. And when there are 2-5 cops on one person there's not excuse when they are the ones with the weapons and the training. The problem is that they're trained to shoot if there is ANY threat. That's why Texas police officer pulled his gun out on kids at a swimming party. But always, people who are against BLM hide behind cases in which they believe killing the person was the right move. Why? Because that's what they would have done. Of course you may not even see where someone in police custody reacts in a dangerous why because THEY believe their life is at stake. They're the only ones not allowed to be afraid and not allowed to act out of fear. And some have proved even when we're perfectly calm and we say "I have a gun because I'm licensed to carry"... still get shot. A lot of black people run from the police because they literally fear for their lives. This is not something most whites understand.
well this could be true but again, any evidence besides rumor and intuition?
Snopes fact checked this and couldn't say it was false.
also. From the Encyclopedia of US Labor and Working-class history
"All law enforcement officials were obligated to arrest anyone even suspected of being a runaway slave, often on very little evidence."
I also have the testimony of someone I grew up with who was homeless and he said sometimes the cops would beat him. In no way am I saying "ALL COPS ARE RACIST". That's not the point. The point is that it happens enough to be a huge problem for us. I have had a run in or two myself that I feel could have been racial but I don't jump to conclusions just because a situation doesn't seem fair. But hell, if we could prove it, I guess that would be the answer, right? Evidence makes it sound so simple and it's not. Especially when you're dealing with people who handle evidence professionally, its not going to be easy to prove your case; especially when they can present "alternative facts" or use their partner as testimony that you're lying.
This is just one example as to why it society supports the cops over the suspects. Imagine a time before video and dash cams. You think they lied less? White weren't simply the ones who arrested us. They were the ones who controlled the media and the narrative. If a white woman says she was raped by a black man it often led to a white riot and lynchings. One of the most famous cases of this was Black Wall Street in Tulsa. You should really read about this.
Nothing at any BLM rally, march, or other form of protest comes anywhere close to this. And under no circumstances are those perptrating these acts of violence or destruction representatives of BLM. That's the problem of having PUBLIC events where any member of the public can participate. Even if you asked on a form or application, no one's going to tick the box that says "Yes, I do intend on starting a riot or destroying property". ALL protests run the risk of being hijacked depending on where they happen.
im on the side that says "all bigotry is bad no matter who it is coming from and no matter who it is directed towards. people should be judged as individuals not by their group associations"
That's not a third side. That's the BLM side. Because no representative of BLM has ever said bigotry is fine so long as its not us. And you cannot make that assumption on their behalf without at least polling a cross section of their organizers. The problem is that racists make criticisms against BLM that makes this sound like they're saying something wrong. People twist their words or put words in their mouths because BLM doesn't have a media channel where they can respond to every criticism and control their own narrative. They can't do that. They don't have the resources to litigate the correct philosophy driving BLM against all of the opponents who have time and money to invest hours of TV programming into denouncing and rebranding BLM as a terrorist organization.
because we have a legal system that is predicated on the rule that we dont murder each other. i understand that the BLM position is that cops are murdering blacks, but once you decide that violence is a legitimate tool in your tool kit, youve transitioned into being a terrorist organization.
neither of us want the state to decide that it has the justification to declare martial law and thats the kindof outcome youre going to get.
Do I want violence? Of course not. But if the entity, hear me out, that is the proponent of violence or war against your people... if that entity that is the threat, IS the legal entity... then you will always have violent AND non-violent protests and you will always have a narrative that is controlled by the legal system to call those people terrorists while to the people they're fighting for, they may be "freedom fighters". Case in point, who were the "terrorists" that led the way to the American Revolution? Did the colonies create the United States without any violence? Did they not have a legal system that stood in opposition to what they wanted to change? What could that legal system have done to keep them happy? Is the non-violent perpetual existence of the legal entity the absolute goal? Or is progress the goal?
Please Log in to join the conversation.