Protests following the killing of George Floyd

AFC NimbleThumb

Full Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
8,280
To me, this is significant (and that's putting it kindly). Is this pragmatism a legacy of a societal power structure historically dominated by white folks? Why, in general and also specifically, is it that people who protest for change are expected to be utterly perfect in their protesting behaviour? Why is it that they are simultaneously criticised for not being a) solely focused on their named cause, and b) also criticised for not protesting beyond that cause and speaking up on behalf of other groups? These are suspiciously high standards being set for them...one might think people are looking for the first convenient opportunity to dismiss the movement. I'm not claiming that those 'concerned' people are all racists (though, as in any sample, some might be); I'm claiming that this discernment in quite rare in public life, so it's arguably telling that BLM in particular attracts that discernment.
Top post.

Protesters for a cause have been painted in far worse light than beach goers during lockdown & people being interviewed this weekend in beer gardens laughing about not social distancing; how strange.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
27,448
Supports
Arsenal
I don't feel its negative criticism as such, people also want to know what they are investing in.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
I just find it incredible that millions rushed to vote for something as economically suicidal as Brexit, with a campaign fronted by known liars of long-established ruthless self-interest, yet suddenly these people are transformed into chin-stroking, ponderous critics when it comes to supporting BLM.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
27,448
Supports
Arsenal
I just find it incredible that millions rushed to vote for something as economically suicidal as Brexit, with a campaign fronted by known liars of long-established ruthless self-interest, yet suddenly these people are transformed into chin-stroking, ponderous critics when it comes to supporting BLM.
Lot of money behind the Brexit movement and a sitting conservative government that had the power and position to drive that campaign. In a sense I feel it is taken a bit personally when someone asks where this is meant to go and that otherwise people are becoming inactive at this stage.
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
To me, this is significant (and that's putting it kindly). Is this pragmatism a legacy of a societal power structure historically dominated by white folks? Why, in general and also specifically, is it that people who protest for change are expected to be utterly perfect in their protesting behaviour? Why is it that they are simultaneously criticised for not being a) solely focused on their named cause, and b) also criticised for not protesting beyond that cause and speaking up on behalf of other groups? These are suspiciously high standards being set for them...one might think people are looking for the first convenient opportunity to dismiss the movement. I'm not claiming that those 'concerned' people are all racists (though, as in any sample, some might be); I'm claiming that this discernment in quite rare in public life, so it's arguably telling that BLM in particular attracts that discernment.
Excellent post.
Essentially respectability politics - BLM has to have a higher degree of expected behaviour in order to convince people to keep supporting the movement.
With such high barriers to entry for societal change, it's no wonder not much actually gets done.

What then happens is people get to pat themselves on the back for posting a black square, and a few slogans or gestures - but they also feel better about not lending support further than that, or actually taking initiative to do something themselves.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
27,448
Supports
Arsenal
Excellent post.
Essentially respectability politics - BLM has to have a higher degree of expected behaviour in order to convince people to keep supporting the movement.
With such high barriers to entry for societal change, it's no wonder not much actually gets done.

What then happens is people get to pat themselves on the back for posting a black square, and a few slogans or gestures - but they also feel better about not lending support further than that, or actually taking initiative to do something themselves.
That's okay then but you're expecting people who usually struggle to think about anyone else to come up with some initiative.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
Really great article from Nesrine Malik in the The Guardian today discussing how he feels that the Black Lives Matter 'movement' has reached that sticky point that always seems to follow the easy part of the public having outrage for something that is plainly outrageous and easily understood, the protests that they can get behind, but then the difficult part comes when the change in our lives is required to push or pull through any real progress.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/black-lives-matter-protests-change-demands - Free to View.
Is that not normal though?

For one, people relatively comfortable in a system will not be hugely motivated to change it unless personally affected. And the majority are obviously comfortable. Secondly, agreeing with the existence of a problem doesn't mean you agree with the proposed solutions to it and that you shouldn't query the legitimacy of those. Pointing out problems is easy, but identifying a solution that most people can get behind is actually the hardest part to solving a societal problem. Unsurprisingly calls for defunding the police or imposing Marxism to solve systemic racism will be met with apathy or disdain by the majority of people.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
27,448
Supports
Arsenal
Is that not normal though?

For one, people relatively comfortable in a system will not be hugely motivated to change it unless personally affected. And the majority are obviously comfortable. Secondly, agreeing with the existence of a problem doesn't mean you agree with the proposed solutions to it and that you shouldn't query the legitimacy of those. Pointing out problems is easy, but identifying a solution that most people can get behind is actually the hardest part to solving a societal problem. Unsurprisingly calls for defunding the police or imposing Marxism to solve systemic racism will be met with apathy or disdain by the majority of people.
Perfectly normal, not admirable is exactly what I'm saying but compared to Brexit where existing prejudice is actively encouraged and the only thing to put yourself out over is to attend a polling station it isn't too critical if at all to ask where is BLM going to encourage followers?
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
That's okay then but you're expecting people who usually struggle to think about anyone else to come up with some initiative.
They don't have to come up with some initiative, but having consistent support shouldn't be too much to ask for?
Protests are still happening, petitions are still active, fundraisers still need support, there's plenty of things to research and be a part of - expecting everything to be spoon-fed and readily available while calling yourself an ally or a supporter is paradoxical.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
27,448
Supports
Arsenal
They don't have to come up with some initiative, but having consistent support shouldn't be too much to ask for?
Protests are still happening, petitions are still active, fundraisers still need support, there's plenty of things to research and be a part of - expecting everything to be spoon-fed and readily available while calling yourself an ally or a supporter is paradoxical.
Well that's okay then, reassuring and good to know that everything in the garden is rosy.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
Excellent post.
Essentially respectability politics - BLM has to have a higher degree of expected behaviour in order to convince people to keep supporting the movement.
With such high barriers to entry for societal change, it's no wonder not much actually gets done.

What then happens is people get to pat themselves on the back for posting a black square, and a few slogans or gestures - but they also feel better about not lending support further than that, or actually taking initiative to do something themselves.
That's true and I would argue that has kinda always been the case for any social change movements. It stems from the fact most people in a society are settled, safe and fearful of change which they prefer only in small doses. Therefore proponents of change have to show impeccable behaviour to be seen as a form of change for good. Movements can very easily be branded extremist and seen as a threat, if their behaviour doesn't meet extremely high standards, even if their cause is just. The establishment representing the status quo is undoubtedly not judged by the same high standards.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,224
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Hilarious isn’t it, see, I remember that video where there was a big line of white protesters with large guns to the side of the BLM march, that was perfectly fine.
That video was bonkers. It underlines how vast the cultural difference between the UK and US is at times. I can't imagine anyone Brit thinking those images were normal or reasonable in any way.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
...BLM has to have a higher degree of expected behaviour in order to convince people to keep supporting the movement.
This is what I was trying to express when I mentioned the legacy of a structure or hierarchy. To me it's the unthinking, soft reflex to a historical legacy of control: in 2020, many are still attempting to shape - even if only by way of granting or withholding approval - the way that Black people can protest. This, I think, is a reflection of how authorities have acted in the past, and how they act now. In past ages, those authorities haven't hesitated to shoot and kill Black protesters; now, such action would draw immense criticism, and so the authorities prefer a more subtle approach (often in terms of more restrained physical action, and by influencing uninvolved people by way of slanted media coverage). A culture that accepted the use and misuse of slaves has 'progressed' to one in which Black people can be deemed 'acceptable' to the rest of us - never truly welcomed though - if they act a certain way. This acceptance-protocol is a spectrum which ranges from expected acquiescence - quietly conforming to the behavioural standards demanded - to the notion that if Black people are not 'useful' (hard-working, entertaining in some way, uncomplaining etc etc) then they are a blot or blight on society, an obstruction on the rails of its well-established smooth maintenance of the status quo; essentially, they are deemed to have the potential to derail the gravy train of power and money. Granted this also holds, to an extent, for protesters of all shade; but because of their past, forced and unchosen roles as mere servants and emblems of both societal insignificance and of slyly-hidden violence, Black people will likely always be the victims of especial scrutiny, suspicion, and glib evaluation.
 
Last edited:

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
That's true and I would argue that has kinda always been the case for any social change movements. It stems from the fact most people in a society are settled, safe and fearful of change which they prefer only in small doses. Therefore proponents of change have to show impeccable behaviour to be seen as a form of change for good. Movements can very easily be branded extremist and seen as a threat, if their behaviour doesn't meet extremely high standards, even if their cause is just. The establishment representing the status quo is undoubtedly not judged by the same high standards.
Precisely & it's a good barometer to see who's serious about supporting a movement, and who just wants to be part of a trend.
Paraphrasing the words of MLK (as much as I hate quoting MLK because he's been gentrified basically)
'the main stumbling block for the Negro is not the KK but rather the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice'
The very people who are moderate on the issue are the main people who are actually capable of producing most change in society.
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
This what I was trying to express when I mentioned the legacy of a structure or hierarchy. To me it's the unthinking, soft reflex to a historical legacy of control: in 2020, many are still attempting to shape - even if only by way of granting or withholding approval - the way that Black people can protest. This, I think, is a reflection of how authorities have acted in the past, and how they act now. In past ages, those authorities haven't hesitated to shoot and kill Black protesters; now, such action would draw immense criticism, and so the authorities prefer a more subtle approach (often in terms of more restrained physical action, and by influencing uninvolved people by way of slanted media coverage). A culture that accepted the use and misuse of slaves has 'progressed' to one in which Black people can be deemed 'acceptable' to the rest of us - never truly welcomed though - if they act a certain way. This acceptance-protocol is a spectrum which ranges from expected acquiescence - quietly conforming to the behavioural standards demanded - to the notion that if Black people are not 'useful' (hard-working, entertaining in some way, uncomplaining etc etc) then they are a blot of blight on society, an obstruction on the rails of its well-established smooth maintenance of the status quo; essentially, they are deemed to have the potential to derail the gravy train of power and money. Granted this also holds, to an extent, for protesters of all shade; but because of their past, forced and unchosen roles as mere servants and emblems of both societal insignificance and of slyly-hidden violence, Black people will likely always be the victims of especial scrutiny, suspicion, and glib evaluation.
Steve, I love you. Great post.
All of the labor is being put on the very oppressed people who are fighting for change, and when those oppressed people act in an undesirable manner (desirability here is defined by the oppressors) they are not worthy of continued support.
This yields true in most societal issues where there is an oppressed minority, so BLM are by no means unique - but consistency of the tactics remaining the same should tell those who aren't affected by x issue, that it's not as a result of the group thats actively fighting against the system that set these rules in the first place.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
27,448
Supports
Arsenal
This is what I was trying to express when I mentioned the legacy of a structure or hierarchy. To me it's the unthinking, soft reflex to a historical legacy of control: in 2020, many are still attempting to shape - even if only by way of granting or withholding approval - the way that Black people can protest. This, I think, is a reflection of how authorities have acted in the past, and how they act now. In past ages, those authorities haven't hesitated to shoot and kill Black protesters; now, such action would draw immense criticism, and so the authorities prefer a more subtle approach (often in terms of more restrained physical action, and by influencing uninvolved people by way of slanted media coverage). A culture that accepted the use and misuse of slaves has 'progressed' to one in which Black people can be deemed 'acceptable' to the rest of us - never truly welcomed though - if they act a certain way. This acceptance-protocol is a spectrum which ranges from expected acquiescence - quietly conforming to the behavioural standards demanded - to the notion that if Black people are not 'useful' (hard-working, entertaining in some way, uncomplaining etc etc) then they are a blot or blight on society, an obstruction on the rails of its well-established smooth maintenance of the status quo; essentially, they are deemed to have the potential to derail the gravy train of power and money. Granted this also holds, to an extent, for protesters of all shade; but because of their past, forced and unchosen roles as mere servants and emblems of both societal insignificance and of slyly-hidden violence, Black people will likely always be the victims of especial scrutiny, suspicion, and glib evaluation.
It's almost as if you keep saying that this shouldn't be the case but it is.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
It's almost as if you keep saying that this shouldn't be the case but it is.
History repeats because it's virtually always the same, mate: same power, same hands. Our roles are set, enforced, and God help us if we complain about it.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

Im not trying to stoke the flames here, im genuinely asking why does this almost seem accepted?

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
No, you're not 'genuinely asking' - you're always doing this, and it's completely obvious.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,992
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

Im not trying to stoke the flames here, im genuinely asking why does this almost seem accepted?

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings.
Because it's not a racially motivated killing and an example of police brutality and racism.

I think people are choosing their causes to highlight as there is virtually an unlimited number of daily atrocities around the globe.

We barely hear about Syria anymore and think stiill around 20.000 people have been killed in that conflict this year. Still lots of killings in Iraq as well and people dying from hunger in Yemen and Africa.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093
Because it's not a racially motivated killing and an example of police brutality and racism.

I think people are choosing their causes to highlight as there is virtually an unlimited number of daily atrocities around the globe.
I get all that.

But it just seems accepted that black on black crime will happen and no one ever seems to want to do anything about it.

Its not hypocrisy because the 2 are different. But it just doesnt sit right with me, that no one wants to do something about this as well
 

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
110,905
Location
Manchester
I get all that.

But it just seems accepted that black on black crime will happen and no one ever seems to want to do anything about it.

Its not hypocrisy because the 2 are different. But it just doesnt sit right with me
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about "white on white crime"?
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about "white on white crime"?
Why dont whites talk about police killing whites?

I guess this isnt the place to ask questions and try to get educated on a matter that im not in a position to experience first hand.
 

Ivor Ballokov

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,758
Location
@arrowsleeper
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

Im not trying to stoke the flames here, im genuinely asking why does this almost seem accepted?

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings.
I get all that.

But it just seems accepted that black on black crime will happen and no one ever seems to want to do anything about it.

Its not hypocrisy because the 2 are different. But it just doesnt sit right with me, that no one wants to do something about this as well
Spend some of the money saved demilitarising the police on improving black communities. Kill two birds with one stone.

Then invest some money on the stone violence issue.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,992
I get all that.

But it just seems accepted that black on black crime will happen and no one ever seems to want to do anything about it.

Its not hypocrisy because the 2 are different. But it just doesnt sit right with me, that no one wants to do something about this as well
Well I think the affected in those communities certainly want something to be done about it, but they are not really heard and it's a difficult problem to solve due to poor social/enviromental conditions, poverty and easy acess to guns. Your regular American doesn't want to pay taxes to fund a wellfare goverment that investes equally in schools, healthcare etc.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
'Why do prisoners so often fight amongst themselves?'
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
I get all that.

But it just seems accepted that black on black crime will happen and no one ever seems to want to do anything about it.

Its not hypocrisy because the 2 are different. But it just doesnt sit right with me, that no one wants to do something about this as well
There's literally a thread mark for the 'black on black crime' argument.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/pro...of-george-floyd.454902/page-153#post-25606259

For your sake though 'black on black crime' doesn't exist - it's just crime.
Google is free if you have any further questions.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093
Well I think the affected in those communities certainly want something to be done about it, but they are not really heard and it's a difficult problem to solve due to poor social/enviromental conditions, poverty and easy acess to guns. Your regular American doesn't want to pay taxes to fund a wellfare goverment that investes equally in schools, healthcare etc.
Your standard problem. Vote in politicians that promise the world and then do nothing to help the problem on the ground.

Is this just a case of poorly educated children, have nothing else to turn to except crime in a lot of cases?
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093
Gonna stop you right here, buddy. ’Black on black’ violence isn’t real.

edit: Actually let me address everything, as if hasn’t been explained 100000 times already.

Black people ‘kill each other’ more than white people kill them because of PROXIMITY. Obviously if you are in a BLACK community there are other black people around you so those will be who you interact with and are in your life more than anyone else.

White people in Glasgow also kill each other as they also have a big gang problem there too but why do you never hear the phrase white on white crime? Or what about countries like Honduras and El Salvador? (which btw have some of the highest homicide rates in the world). Why do you never hear the phrase ‘Hispanic on Hispanic’ crime (I am aware that black people can be Hispanic too but black Hispanics are a minority in these countries). Or what about back in the 20th century when white Italian mafia bosses killed other white Italian mafia members? Or people like Jesse and Frank James? Why was this never known as ‘white on white’ violence?

As for your other points, the stats around crime committing are usually skewed because black people are more likely to be wrongfully arrested or accused of committing crimes they didn’t. For the crimes that they actually DO commit, socio economic factors such as poverty, poor housing, no facilities in the community etc. usually lead to crime, and like I mentioned in a previous post just the other day, these things aren’t limited to black people and black communities. Just look at the conditions of some of the communities in these South American countries that operate the largest drug cartels. And black people shouldn’t have to not kill each other for the police to see us as human. They are law enforcers, representative of the people and are therefore held at a higher standard. Lastly, white people are killed more by police because there are more white people than anyone else in America.
Just asked a question on this later on in the thread and a poster directed me here. Thanks for this and the subsequent posts
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
Thanks for that link. I hadnt seen that buried within the george floyd thread.

You can leave your sarcasm at the door.
I don't take kindly to disingenuous questions, when the topic is about black people being killed.
If that upsets you, put me on ignore.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093
I don't take kindly to disingenuous questions, when the topic is about black people being killed.
If that upsets you, put me on ignore.
Again, i wasn't disingenuous. Im not in a position to even imagine how a young black man feels living in america, in fear from the one establishment that should be keeping them safe.

To try to understand i need to ask questions to learn and educate myself.

Otherwise what can i do?

Its hostility like this that stops people from asking questions and trying to understand other peoples problems and difficulties in life.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,992
Your standard problem. Vote in politicians that promise the world and then do nothing to help the problem on the ground.

Is this just a case of poorly educated children, have nothing else to turn to except crime in a lot of cases?
I'm not even going to pretend be an expert or highly educated on that topic. It's too complex.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,353
Location
France
I get all that.

But it just seems accepted that black on black crime will happen and no one ever seems to want to do anything about it.

Its not hypocrisy because the 2 are different. But it just doesnt sit right with me, that no one wants to do something about this as well
What do you mean by that? What does black on black crime means to you?
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,093
What do you mean by that? What does black on black crime means to you?
After reading Sara's post i get it.

Its not just as simple as black on black. It doesnt need labelled. Those within close proximity are more likely to be the cause of the crime amongst each other.

Ive never heard the phrase "white on white" because no one is labelling it as a way of detracting from other issues like the phrase "black on black crime" is used, mainly by those that would use the "all llives matter" phrase. Its to distract from the larger problem.

The post villian linked me to and the subsequent replies were educational, as I hoped to achieve by asking the question
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,038
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
This is what I was trying to express when I mentioned the legacy of a structure or hierarchy.

To me it's the unthinking, soft reflex to a historical legacy of control: in 2020, many are still attempting to shape - even if only by way of granting or withholding approval - the way that Black people can protest. This, I think, is a reflection of how authorities have acted in the past, and how they act now. In past ages, those authorities haven't hesitated to shoot and kill Black protesters; now, such action would draw immense criticism, and so the authorities prefer a more subtle approach (often in terms of more restrained physical action, and by influencing uninvolved people by way of slanted media coverage). A culture that accepted the use and misuse of slaves has 'progressed' to one in which Black people can be deemed 'acceptable' to the rest of us - never truly welcomed though - if they act a certain way.

This acceptance-protocol is a spectrum which ranges from expected acquiescence - quietly conforming to the behavioural standards demanded - to the notion that if Black people are not 'useful' (hard-working, entertaining in some way, uncomplaining etc etc) then they are a blot or blight on society, an obstruction on the rails of its well-established smooth maintenance of the status quo; essentially, they are deemed to have the potential to derail the gravy train of power and money. Granted this also holds, to an extent, for protesters of all shade; but because of their past, forced and unchosen roles as mere servants and emblems of both societal insignificance and of slyly-hidden violence, Black people will likely always be the victims of especial scrutiny, suspicion, and glib evaluation.
Paragraphed that beautiful post up for you, buddy.