Being subject to the discrimination is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problem. Someone could have a great insight about solving racism without ever even meeting a black person. If they did, why wouldn't we want to go with that strategy?
As I said in my prior post, ignoring black voices is kind of a huge part of the problem. This is why who is speaking matters and also why white people insisting that they might know a better way only perpetuates the systematic silencing of black voices.
If white people could take the the lead and could make major steps to mitigating racism or black people could take the lead and the white people in power never listened to them, which would you prefer?
I'm really not interested in answering such a loaded question. The reality is that black people have been systematically oppressed by white people in America for hundreds of years, both overtly and more subtlety. The desire for a safe space that allows their voices to be heard without white people shouting, "what about me" is not an unreasonable one.
Safe spaces make sense for venting. Not for political action. The most effective strategy should always be the strategy IMO, even if it isn't the most personally fulfilling for the members of the group. But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread. I think that change requires focus and a common purpose. It also requires messaging and coalition building that works to convince the white male power base in this country.
+5
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Being subject to the discrimination is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problem. Someone could have a great insight about solving racism without ever even meeting a black person. If they did, why wouldn't we want to go with that strategy?
As I said in my prior post, ignoring black voices is kind of a huge part of the problem. This is why who is speaking matters and also why white people insisting that they might know a better way only perpetuates the systematic silencing of black voices.
If white people could take the the lead and could make major steps to mitigating racism or black people could take the lead and the white people in power never listened to them, which would you prefer?
I'm really not interested in answering such a loaded question. The reality is that black people have been systematically oppressed by white people in America for hundreds of years, both overtly and more subtlety. The desire for a safe space that allows their voices to be heard without white people shouting, "what about me" is not an unreasonable one.
Safe spaces make sense for venting. Not for political action. The most effective strategy should always be the strategy IMO, even if it isn't the most personally fulfilling for the members of the group. But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread. I think that change requires focus and a common purpose. It also requires messaging and coalition building that works to convince the white male power base in this country.
This is a great example of the failures and common pitfalls encountered by whites who believe themselves to be helping.
Notice the affinity for action which is subdued, minimally disruptive, and as in the case of early feminism, advances the cause of perhaps the most palatable of minority causes at the cost of everyone else.
In contrast, this movement is loud and unapologetically inclusive. Convincing those in power with polite suggestions and requests has been shown to be ineffective at least as a sole means of enacting social change, so expect to see more occupation, roadblocks, and other inconveniences until action is taken. Until then, you're welcome to educate yourselves and decide which side of history you would like to be on.
But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread.
This comment explains so much. It really doesn't matter why those movements ultimately fractured under the stress of minority women being repeatedly pushed to the back of the line?
Being subject to the discrimination is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problem. Someone could have a great insight about solving racism without ever even meeting a black person. If they did, why wouldn't we want to go with that strategy?
As I said in my prior post, ignoring black voices is kind of a huge part of the problem. This is why who is speaking matters and also why white people insisting that they might know a better way only perpetuates the systematic silencing of black voices.
If white people could take the the lead and could make major steps to mitigating racism or black people could take the lead and the white people in power never listened to them, which would you prefer?
I'm really not interested in answering such a loaded question. The reality is that black people have been systematically oppressed by white people in America for hundreds of years, both overtly and more subtlety. The desire for a safe space that allows their voices to be heard without white people shouting, "what about me" is not an unreasonable one.
Safe spaces make sense for venting. Not for political action. The most effective strategy should always be the strategy IMO, even if it isn't the most personally fulfilling for the members of the group. But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread. I think that change requires focus and a common purpose. It also requires messaging and coalition building that works to convince the white male power base in this country.
This is a great example of the failures and common pitfalls encountered by whites who believe themselves to be helping.
Notice the affinity for action which is subdued, minimally disruptive, and as in the case of early feminism, advances the cause of perhaps the most palatable of minority causes at the cost of everyone else.
In contrast, this movement is loud and unapologetically inclusive. Convincing those in power with polite suggestions and requests has been shown to be ineffective at least as a sole means of enacting social change, so expect to see more occupation, roadblocks, and other inconveniences until action is taken. Until then, you're welcome to educate yourselves and decide which side of history you would like to be on.
It's relatively common for people in social-justicey movements to say that they don't care about the precious feefees of some cis white dude, they care about the woman of color he's oppressing. My classical liberal upbringing has given me a strong instinctive negative reaction to any argument that takes the form "Your opinions are worthy of dismissal because your skin has the wrong Melanin concentration", but let's assume you've gotten past that little hurdle and accepted such arguments into your norms of discourse. Because what could go wrong?
The problem is, there are still people of color who think that activist movements shouldn't disrupt presidential speeches, or that affirmative action is unjust or whatever, on account of black people not being a hivemind. Do you care about welcoming them? At what point do a black person's opinions make them not black enough for the movement?
Solutions I have seen to this problem include:
A. Be dismissive towards anyone with opinions you disagree with, regardless of their race.
B. Only be dismissive of people who are confirmed to be white cishet dudes.
C. Try to treat everyone fairly and not be dismissive of anyone's opinion.
D. Pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is a white cishet man, even if they aren't. Then be dismissive of them based on that.
C seems like the clear choice to me, but YMMV I guess.
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
3rd wave feminism has accomplished what, exactly?
I think MrMr's post said it very well. A successful movement combines true believers, members of the group who are very invested in the cause, and the support of friendly members of the dominant group. The last group is arguably the most important IMO, and the trick is managing that relationship so that they do what you want/need them to.
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Being subject to the discrimination is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problem. Someone could have a great insight about solving racism without ever even meeting a black person. If they did, why wouldn't we want to go with that strategy?
As I said in my prior post, ignoring black voices is kind of a huge part of the problem. This is why who is speaking matters and also why white people insisting that they might know a better way only perpetuates the systematic silencing of black voices.
If white people could take the the lead and could make major steps to mitigating racism or black people could take the lead and the white people in power never listened to them, which would you prefer?
I'm really not interested in answering such a loaded question. The reality is that black people have been systematically oppressed by white people in America for hundreds of years, both overtly and more subtlety. The desire for a safe space that allows their voices to be heard without white people shouting, "what about me" is not an unreasonable one.
Safe spaces make sense for venting. Not for political action. The most effective strategy should always be the strategy IMO, even if it isn't the most personally fulfilling for the members of the group. But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread. I think that change requires focus and a common purpose. It also requires messaging and coalition building that works to convince the white male power base in this country.
This is a great example of the failures and common pitfalls encountered by whites who believe themselves to be helping.
Notice the affinity for action which is subdued, minimally disruptive, and as in the case of early feminism, advances the cause of perhaps the most palatable of minority causes at the cost of everyone else.
In contrast, this movement is loud and unapologetically inclusive. Convincing those in power with polite suggestions and requests has been shown to be ineffective at least as a sole means of enacting social change, so expect to see more occupation, roadblocks, and other inconveniences until action is taken. Until then, you're welcome to educate yourselves and decide which side of history you would like to be on.
It's relatively common for people in social-justicey movements to say that they don't care about the precious feefees of some cis white dude, they care about the woman of color he's oppressing. My classical liberal upbringing has given me a strong instinctive negative reaction to any argument that takes the form "Your opinions are worthy of dismissal because your skin has the wrong Melanin concentration", but let's assume you've gotten past that little hurdle and accepted such arguments into your norms of discourse. Because what could go wrong?
The problem is, there are still people of color who think that activist movements shouldn't disrupt presidential speeches, or that affirmative action is unjust or whatever, on account of black people not being a hivemind. Do you care about welcoming them? At what point do a black person's opinions make them not black enough for the movement?
Solutions I have seen to this problem include:
A. Be dismissive towards anyone with opinions you disagree with, regardless of their race.
B. Only be dismissive of people who are confirmed to be white cishet dudes.
C. Try to treat everyone fairly and not be dismissive of anyone's opinion.
D. Pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is a white cishet man, even if they aren't. Then be dismissive of them based on that.
C seems like the clear choice to me, but YMMV I guess.
It's a question of life experience. Can we agree that some opinions are better than others with regards to a given situation?
I have not had exposure to this issue in as direct a way as a lot of people, for reasons that are inextricably linked with race. My family has not had to deal with hiring discrimination, police brutality, predatory lending, or other racist discrimination.
Ergo, if I'm sitting at a table that includes everyone and the subject of "hey how about this racism thing" is bright up, I'm going to do the productive thing and let people speak who have something relevant to say, especially if one of their concerns is not being heard.
TL DR on
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Honestly I don't find it personally that hard.
If a movement doesn't ask for, and says they don't want, my participation and support, okay.
Because Black Lives Matter isn't the only group out there that is interested in reforming policing/race issues in the country.
There are many (even if they're not the current focus of the circus that is our media apparatus). If it's an important subject to you, and you want to help, there are many groups out there and I'm sure at least one of them would like your support in any form you can give it.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
It's not being a lackey, it's being respectful. An ally who dismisses the people who go through their daily life being oppressed and thinks they have all the answers isn't a good ally.
Harry Dresden on
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think BLM is making a huge mistake trying to be apolitical. Politics is definitionally the way you enact meaningful change in the organization of a society, and so people hoping to generate change without seeking to do so through direct political interaction are fooling themselves. It seems like mostly what they are doing is trying to be a nuisance in order to get people to pay attention to the issue, but plenty of people are already paying attention to the issue. What's missing from the equation isn't necessarily the will to act, but the means--politicians who will propose and vote for legislation that BLM wants enacted. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to shame presidential candidates into forming a position, they should be identifying legislators who will push their agenda and voting down legislators who won't. Yes, that means picking a party and working with them, even if that party's record on race is imperfect. Yes, that means negotiation and compromise. Yes, that means the hard work of getting people to vote and getting people to vote for the people you want them to vote for. That's tougher, longer, less sexy work than shouting in the streets, but it's necessary if you actually want to do something.
Occupy wasn't totally toothless--they managed to influence the conversation, at least--but arguably the race conversation is already happening, and has been since at least Ferguson (if not Trayvon). What's needed is for an organization to put that free-floating political capital to goddamn work.
Did protests and marches and sit-ins and boycotts achieve civil rights? No, the Civil Rights Act did. If BLM wants to change this country, it'll have to bite the bullet and work with our system, or it'll get nowhere but dismissed and discredited.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
+3
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I can see the logic of trying to remain unaligned. In the sense that picking the obvious side just gives Fox and the GOP shills to dismiss it all as crypto-Democrat agitating.
But it looks like they are already doing exactly that.
+3
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
Is this projecting or a silencing tactic?
This is not a reasonable reading of SKFM at all.
An ally gets to voice their opinion, a lackey gets to listen, and say "Yes. I agree!" when they are told. The former has nothing to do with being in control.
+8
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Being subject to the discrimination is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problem. Someone could have a great insight about solving racism without ever even meeting a black person. If they did, why wouldn't we want to go with that strategy?
It is possible for someone to develop a unified theory of gravity without ever having gone to college.
Except we don't actually live in a Pauly Shore movie, and so when the wacky dude in the rainbow hightops starts giving his analogy between gravitons and candy corns, it is reasonable to tune him out as noise. There are thousands of people who know fuckall about race relations and live in 99% white neighborhoods about 200 miles from the nearest ghetto, and while it is physically possible that the precise configuration of subatomic particles in their head is aligned as "brilliant solution for race relations," the non-stupid money is on them having no idea what they're talking about. More likely, their idea is something like "Have we all tried getting along?"
It's not sensible or open-minded to listen to every random dude's treatise on gravity; it takes a ridiculous amount of education to be able to participate in the conversation in a way that is not just noise. Similarly, it takes an intimate familiarity with being a black person to be able to contribute meaningfully to the conversation on race.
What can somewhat without a physics degree do to advance science and help find a theory of gravity? Encourage actual scientists! Donate money to science! Talk about science with each other in an open way that furthers education! And when the actual scientists are talking, understand your dearth of knowledge and grant them proper respect!
Ditto with race relations. Be engaged, be informed, be supportive, but know when to shut up and listen. Because I guarantee that you, SKFM, just like me, do not have the cure for racism rattling around your skull. And pretending that we might does not do anyone any favors.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
A good ally does voice opinions, but also keeps in check that their perception of the problem may not be accurate.
That their opinions could very well be wrong. And when they come up against someone who's telling them they're wrong, that there are things they don't understand about the issues, that their opinions might be outright offensive or hurtful. That the group they are an ally to might be a little hostile towards their misguided opinions from having to constantly live through those opinions making the problem worse.
No I don't.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
A good ally does voice opinions, but also keeps in check that their perception of the problem may not be accurate.
That their opinions could very well be wrong. And when they come up against someone who's telling them they're wrong, that there are things they don't understand about the issues, that their opinions might be outright offensive or hurtful. That the group they are an ally to might be a little hostile towards their misguided opinions from having to constantly live through those opinions making the problem worse.
Ok. So you are charging who, exactly, with not being aware that they could be wrong?
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
A good ally does voice opinions, but also keeps in check that their perception of the problem may not be accurate.
That their opinions could very well be wrong. And when they come up against someone who's telling them they're wrong, that there are things they don't understand about the issues, that their opinions might be outright offensive or hurtful. That the group they are an ally to might be a little hostile towards their misguided opinions from having to constantly live through those opinions making the problem worse.
Ok. So you are charging who, exactly, with not being aware that they could be wrong?
No one? My post wasn't an accusation of anything being thrown at anyone.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Christ, if you squeezed this post you could serve ice cold glasses of irony-juice to an entire Sunday brunch party.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
The first role. You can't be a good ally if you don't make any attempt to understand the damned problem.
And that doesn't just go for social issues, but any use of the word. Like, the US wouldn't be a good ally to a foreign nation who's at war if they didn't understand the causes of the war and where the theater of battle is at. The first role of an ally is to shut up and listen, not because their opinion isn't valuable, but because without doing this first they are ignorant of what the problems even are.
No I don't.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
I do think it's true that some allies aren't worth having in the movement, because they're intolerably interested in running the show / dictating the terms. Sometimes organizations need to sensibly purge those people. It can also be worthwhile to wonder if you are being one of those people yourself.
Nonetheless, I think it's important to keep in mind that lots of people have crossed lines (been class traitors, race traitors, gender traitors, etc. etc.) in very important ways in the history of emancipatory movements--hell, despite everything creepy about him, John Brown is one of the most important figures in American emancipation. When there are such talented and committed figures, we shouldn't spurn them for being the wrong type. If we do, we miss out not just on an inspiring example of cross-type collaboration, but on people who might be really good at what they're doing. No John Brown may have meant no civil war and slavery persisting for generations further. (We can also look to those white Anti-Apartheid figures I mentioned before, and I'm sure many others from all sorts of struggles besides).
Furthermore, it's also important to keep in mind that there is a huge diversity of opinion within these movements, and the questions they tackle are by no means settled--so it's not like there's a 'received wisdom' everyone good ally should just listen to. There's no democratic centralism of emancipation. Rather, there's just a lot of people with a lot of different views. Even if you just wanted to follow the party line, that is complicated by the fact that there isn't one.
And finally, these movements do, at some point, need to mobilize broader support. Now, this doesn't need to happen in terms of internal party leadership: you can have your entire internal leadership be [type] and this may in some situations be called for: but still, there needs to be some level of strategy and description where action is taken that can bring a winning political coalition to bear. Maybe this isn't even a particularly broad electoral coalition; maybe it involves coopting moneyed elites instead. Whatever. But as people like ronya will teach us, there's little hope for a movement that can't get any traction with the elite, or with masses, or with ANY [fill in a socially powerful coalition here].
So yeah: don't be shitty. We should all agree with that. But I think that we should agree with the rest too.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
This is an extreme reading of the explanations before it, at that point he should already know that isn't the case with how allies act in movements. You aren't scolding SKFM for doing that in this discussion.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
Being subject to the discrimination is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problem. Someone could have a great insight about solving racism without ever even meeting a black person. If they did, why wouldn't we want to go with that strategy?
It is possible for someone to develop a unified theory of gravity without ever having gone to college.
Except we don't actually live in a Pauly Shore movie, and so when the wacky dude in the rainbow hightops starts giving his analogy between gravitons and candy corns, it is reasonable to tune him out as noise. There are thousands of people who know fuckall about race relations and live in 99% white neighborhoods about 200 miles from the nearest ghetto, and while it is physically possible that the precise configuration of subatomic particles in their head is aligned as "brilliant solution for race relations," the non-stupid money is on them having no idea what they're talking about. More likely, their idea is something like "Have we all tried getting along?"
It's not sensible or open-minded to listen to every random dude's treatise on gravity; it takes a ridiculous amount of education to be able to participate in the conversation in a way that is not just noise. Similarly, it takes an intimate familiarity with being a black person to be able to contribute meaningfully to the conversation on race.
What can somewhat without a physics degree do to advance science and help find a theory of gravity? Encourage actual scientists! Donate money to science! Talk about science with each other in an open way that furthers education! And when the actual scientists are talking, understand your dearth of knowledge and grant them proper respect!
Ditto with race relations. Be engaged, be informed, be supportive, but know when to shut up and listen. Because I guarantee that you, SKFM, just like me, do not have the cure for racism rattling around your skull. And pretending that we might does not do anyone any favors.
What I really wonder is why does anyone care that someone else says this. I mean "Oh no, there might be an issue on which my opinion is not super relevant"? Why does that get anyone up in arms?
It seems like the indignation is solely over the idea that maybe your opinion on racism towards black people in the US might not be given primacy. Which ... like, the indignation looks like pure "Why am I not the centre of attention" whinging.
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
This is an extreme reading of the explanations before it, at that point he should already know that isn't the case with how allies act in movements. You aren't scolding SKFM for doing that in this discussion.
So, did everyone disagree with the phrase "you need to shut up"? Or is everyone just pretending that it didn't happen or is everyone pretending that it can naturally and reasonably understood as "be respectful and mindful"?
As for what SKFM is doing, no I am not scolding him for the same thing as he isn't doing the same thing. It might be true that he is not understanding or otherwise misrepresenting what your and your compatriots recommend for allies, but it isn't by any means obviously willful or based on convenient equivocation and ever shifting positions.
"Shut up" is not the same as "Defer to people's lived experience of racism and consequent opinions" is not the same as "express your opinions respectfully, be mindful of the experiences of others". They are however in order of reasonability and the strategy seems to be "fall back to the less radical position when challenged" because who could disagree with the latter?
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
Tldr said more than that.
Yes. But in contrast to the claim that no one was being told to shut up, that is one of the first things said.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Being subject to the discrimination is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problem. Someone could have a great insight about solving racism without ever even meeting a black person. If they did, why wouldn't we want to go with that strategy?
It is possible for someone to develop a unified theory of gravity without ever having gone to college.
Except we don't actually live in a Pauly Shore movie, and so when the wacky dude in the rainbow hightops starts giving his analogy between gravitons and candy corns, it is reasonable to tune him out as noise. There are thousands of people who know fuckall about race relations and live in 99% white neighborhoods about 200 miles from the nearest ghetto, and while it is physically possible that the precise configuration of subatomic particles in their head is aligned as "brilliant solution for race relations," the non-stupid money is on them having no idea what they're talking about. More likely, their idea is something like "Have we all tried getting along?"
It's not sensible or open-minded to listen to every random dude's treatise on gravity; it takes a ridiculous amount of education to be able to participate in the conversation in a way that is not just noise. Similarly, it takes an intimate familiarity with being a black person to be able to contribute meaningfully to the conversation on race.
What can somewhat without a physics degree do to advance science and help find a theory of gravity? Encourage actual scientists! Donate money to science! Talk about science with each other in an open way that furthers education! And when the actual scientists are talking, understand your dearth of knowledge and grant them proper respect!
Ditto with race relations. Be engaged, be informed, be supportive, but know when to shut up and listen. Because I guarantee that you, SKFM, just like me, do not have the cure for racism rattling around your skull. And pretending that we might does not do anyone any favors.
What I really wonder is why does anyone care that someone else says this. I mean "Oh no, there might be an issue on which my opinion is not super relevant"? Why does that get anyone up in arms?
It seems like the indignation is solely over the idea that maybe your opinion on racism towards black people in the US might not be given primacy. Which ... like, the indignation looks like pure "Why am I not the centre of attention" whinging.
Because they are simultaneously being courted for support or acquiescence.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
Tldr said more than that.
Yes. But in contrast to the claim that no one was being told to shut up, that is one of the first things said.
If I had to hazard a guess, our step one ought to always be Shut up and listen. PoC/queer/other minority groups have a unique perspective and are in the best position to state their own needs. A well-intentioned reframing of the issues in more comfortable classist terms, for example, is a good way to be a Bad Ally *cough*Bernie*cough*.
Read up on intersectionality, ableism, tone policing, derailing, white feminism, cultural appropriation, and what it means to check your privilege.
Why yes, the first step to becoming an ally IS to shut up and listen so that you gain a better understanding of the problem. Step two, however, is to used that gained knowledge and your personal experiences to help however you can. That could be by doing what your told, or also by expressing your opinions on what could be done!
So yes, he did say to shut up. But it wasn't a shut up forever and ever... But shut up until you know what the fuck you're talking about.
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
This is an extreme reading of the explanations before it, at that point he should already know that isn't the case with how allies act in movements. You aren't scolding SKFM for doing that in this discussion.
So, did everyone disagree with the phrase "you need to shut up"? Or is everyone just pretending that it didn't happen or is everyone pretending that it can naturally and reasonably understood as "be respectful and mindful"?
No-one's pretending, my last post clarified what happened via "walking back." That comment made sense directly after that, not the posts clarifying further that he could voice his opinion and remain an ally.
As for what SKFM is doing, no I am not scolding him for the same thing as he isn't doing the same thing. It might be true that he is not understanding or otherwise misrepresenting what your and your compatriots recommend for allies, but it isn't by any means obviously willful or based on convenient equivocation and ever shifting positions.
No, he did a different thing - like ignoring the statements about what an ally does and responding with an extreme retort that compared respectful allies to passive lackeys.
"Shut up" is not the same as "Defer to people's lived experience of racism and consequent opinions" is not the same as "express your opinions respectfully, be mindful of the experiences of others". They are however in order of reasonability and the strategy seems to be "fall back to the less radical position when challenged" because who could disagree with the latter?
That explains his response to TL:DR's (which he retracted), not everyone else's in the continuing discussion. The issue isn't that allies can't contribute opinions, it's that they don't take over the agenda and dismiss others who have greater insight.
Safe spaces make sense for venting. Not for political action. The most effective strategy should always be the strategy IMO, even if it isn't the most personally fulfilling for the members of the group. But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread. I think that change requires focus and a common purpose. It also requires messaging and coalition building that works to convince the white male power base in this country.
He blatantly ignores the political reality of a white man taking over the movement and dismissing the minority's opinions on the subject of their oppression in their own group because white men have all the answers.
And the discounting of the reframing of the issue as a classist issue is a classic example of the failure to market your ideas. Racism is real. The best solution will come from action against classism because the minority community has done a great job of making the 'nominal' white person hate racism. Now, maybe they are actually racist themselves, but forcing them to accept that is a massive challenge requiring individual attention to each person whose mind you want to change. You don't have time for that.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Safe spaces make sense for venting. Not for political action. The most effective strategy should always be the strategy IMO, even if it isn't the most personally fulfilling for the members of the group. But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread. I think that change requires focus and a common purpose. It also requires messaging and coalition building that works to convince the white male power base in this country.
He blatantly ignores the political reality of a white man taking over the movement and dismissing the minority's opinions on the subject of their oppression in their own group because white men have all the answers.
Good christ, nobody here is dismissing the minority's opinions on what their oppression is or what it feels like to be oppressed or the fact of their oppression. What people are questioning, and rightly and fairly so, is whether or not this particular minority group is pursuing the right strategy in order to combat that oppression.
I mean, SKFM is part of the white power base in this country, given his (presumed) race and socioeconomic status. He probably has some good ideas about what can convince a guy like him, who basically has no dog in this fight, to give a shit and do his part, whatever that part may be.
+10
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
TLDR, the question isn't "should BLM dismiss white dudes' opinions - we're talking about how to be a good ally.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
What do you mean no?
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
Tldr said more than that.
Yes. But in contrast to the claim that no one was being told to shut up, that is one of the first things said.
If I had to hazard a guess, our step one ought to always be Shut up and listen. PoC/queer/other minority groups have a unique perspective and are in the best position to state their own needs. A well-intentioned reframing of the issues in more comfortable classist terms, for example, is a good way to be a Bad Ally *cough*Bernie*cough*.
Read up on intersectionality, ableism, tone policing, derailing, white feminism, cultural appropriation, and what it means to check your privilege.
Why yes, the first step to becoming an ally IS to shut up and listen so that you gain a better understanding of the problem. Step two, however, is to used that gained knowledge and your personal experiences to help however you can. That could be by doing what your told, or also by expressing your opinions on what could be done!
So yes, he did say to shut up. But it wasn't a shut up forever and ever... But shut up until you know what the fuck you're talking about.
Ok, so when do you know what you're talking about?
Edit: for clarity, as an ally, not DoR specifically.
Apothe0sis on
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I just think that by the time somebody says "Okay I'm ready to be an ally, what do I do," telling them "go educate yourself" is both pointless and insulting. Most people who are reaching out to help a cause are already familiar with that cause, or they wouldn't care enough to go help in the first place. They're already past step one.
Posts
So this happened.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Safe spaces make sense for venting. Not for political action. The most effective strategy should always be the strategy IMO, even if it isn't the most personally fulfilling for the members of the group. But then I prefer 1st/2nd wave feminism to 3rd wave for much the same reasons as I am raising in this thread. I think that change requires focus and a common purpose. It also requires messaging and coalition building that works to convince the white male power base in this country.
This is a great example of the failures and common pitfalls encountered by whites who believe themselves to be helping.
Notice the affinity for action which is subdued, minimally disruptive, and as in the case of early feminism, advances the cause of perhaps the most palatable of minority causes at the cost of everyone else.
In contrast, this movement is loud and unapologetically inclusive. Convincing those in power with polite suggestions and requests has been shown to be ineffective at least as a sole means of enacting social change, so expect to see more occupation, roadblocks, and other inconveniences until action is taken. Until then, you're welcome to educate yourselves and decide which side of history you would like to be on.
This comment explains so much. It really doesn't matter why those movements ultimately fractured under the stress of minority women being repeatedly pushed to the back of the line?
It's relatively common for people in social-justicey movements to say that they don't care about the precious feefees of some cis white dude, they care about the woman of color he's oppressing. My classical liberal upbringing has given me a strong instinctive negative reaction to any argument that takes the form "Your opinions are worthy of dismissal because your skin has the wrong Melanin concentration", but let's assume you've gotten past that little hurdle and accepted such arguments into your norms of discourse. Because what could go wrong?
The problem is, there are still people of color who think that activist movements shouldn't disrupt presidential speeches, or that affirmative action is unjust or whatever, on account of black people not being a hivemind. Do you care about welcoming them? At what point do a black person's opinions make them not black enough for the movement?
Solutions I have seen to this problem include:
A. Be dismissive towards anyone with opinions you disagree with, regardless of their race.
B. Only be dismissive of people who are confirmed to be white cishet dudes.
C. Try to treat everyone fairly and not be dismissive of anyone's opinion.
D. Pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is a white cishet man, even if they aren't. Then be dismissive of them based on that.
C seems like the clear choice to me, but YMMV I guess.
Well this combined with Hasslebeck shows us what's fox's next ACORN sorry Black Lives Matter you're fucked.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think MrMr's post said it very well. A successful movement combines true believers, members of the group who are very invested in the cause, and the support of friendly members of the dominant group. The last group is arguably the most important IMO, and the trick is managing that relationship so that they do what you want/need them to.
It's a question of life experience. Can we agree that some opinions are better than others with regards to a given situation?
I have not had exposure to this issue in as direct a way as a lot of people, for reasons that are inextricably linked with race. My family has not had to deal with hiring discrimination, police brutality, predatory lending, or other racist discrimination.
Ergo, if I'm sitting at a table that includes everyone and the subject of "hey how about this racism thing" is bright up, I'm going to do the productive thing and let people speak who have something relevant to say, especially if one of their concerns is not being heard.
But by your definition, being a good ally is being passive and deferential. That isn't really an ally at all. That's a lackey.
If a movement doesn't ask for, and says they don't want, my participation and support, okay.
Because Black Lives Matter isn't the only group out there that is interested in reforming policing/race issues in the country.
There are many (even if they're not the current focus of the circus that is our media apparatus). If it's an important subject to you, and you want to help, there are many groups out there and I'm sure at least one of them would like your support in any form you can give it.
It's not being a lackey, it's being respectful. An ally who dismisses the people who go through their daily life being oppressed and thinks they have all the answers isn't a good ally.
Occupy wasn't totally toothless--they managed to influence the conversation, at least--but arguably the race conversation is already happening, and has been since at least Ferguson (if not Trayvon). What's needed is for an organization to put that free-floating political capital to goddamn work.
Did protests and marches and sit-ins and boycotts achieve civil rights? No, the Civil Rights Act did. If BLM wants to change this country, it'll have to bite the bullet and work with our system, or it'll get nowhere but dismissed and discredited.
Using the word "lackey" makes me think your intent of being an ally isn't to actually be an ally but to be in charge so if something good happens you get to feel good about yourself for "helping". If you truly wanted to be an ally then you'd be okay with stepping back and letting the people who this actually affects take charge while you're working in the background.
But it looks like they are already doing exactly that.
Is this projecting or a silencing tactic?
This is not a reasonable reading of SKFM at all.
An ally gets to voice their opinion, a lackey gets to listen, and say "Yes. I agree!" when they are told. The former has nothing to do with being in control.
To me an ally is a participant. A lackey shuts their brain off and doesn't serve in the best capacity that they could because they just help give effect to someone else's ideas. I am not willing to concede that the someone else in this case has the best ideas. If they are the best, let them win out on merit, not the identity of the thinker.
It is possible for someone to develop a unified theory of gravity without ever having gone to college.
Except we don't actually live in a Pauly Shore movie, and so when the wacky dude in the rainbow hightops starts giving his analogy between gravitons and candy corns, it is reasonable to tune him out as noise. There are thousands of people who know fuckall about race relations and live in 99% white neighborhoods about 200 miles from the nearest ghetto, and while it is physically possible that the precise configuration of subatomic particles in their head is aligned as "brilliant solution for race relations," the non-stupid money is on them having no idea what they're talking about. More likely, their idea is something like "Have we all tried getting along?"
It's not sensible or open-minded to listen to every random dude's treatise on gravity; it takes a ridiculous amount of education to be able to participate in the conversation in a way that is not just noise. Similarly, it takes an intimate familiarity with being a black person to be able to contribute meaningfully to the conversation on race.
What can somewhat without a physics degree do to advance science and help find a theory of gravity? Encourage actual scientists! Donate money to science! Talk about science with each other in an open way that furthers education! And when the actual scientists are talking, understand your dearth of knowledge and grant them proper respect!
Ditto with race relations. Be engaged, be informed, be supportive, but know when to shut up and listen. Because I guarantee that you, SKFM, just like me, do not have the cure for racism rattling around your skull. And pretending that we might does not do anyone any favors.
Except no-one's saying you have to shut up. Voice your opinion, but respectfully and in context to the world around you. The context for racism in American culture doesn't cease to exist when a white ally voices an opinion.
That their opinions could very well be wrong. And when they come up against someone who's telling them they're wrong, that there are things they don't understand about the issues, that their opinions might be outright offensive or hurtful. That the group they are an ally to might be a little hostile towards their misguided opinions from having to constantly live through those opinions making the problem worse.
Ok. So you are charging who, exactly, with not being aware that they could be wrong?
The first page and the post that started this whole discussion explicitly said that the role of the ally was to shut up and listen.
No one? My post wasn't an accusation of anything being thrown at anyone.
No, allies can voice opinions it's to be respectful and not take over the conversation. That was spelled out later on.
Christ, if you squeezed this post you could serve ice cold glasses of irony-juice to an entire Sunday brunch party.
The first role. You can't be a good ally if you don't make any attempt to understand the damned problem.
And that doesn't just go for social issues, but any use of the word. Like, the US wouldn't be a good ally to a foreign nation who's at war if they didn't understand the causes of the war and where the theater of battle is at. The first role of an ally is to shut up and listen, not because their opinion isn't valuable, but because without doing this first they are ignorant of what the problems even are.
It was a thing that happened. TL;DR said that is what ought be done. Walking that back into "you should express your opinions respectfully" and being mindful of the impact of living with racism doesn't change that.
Unless we are dealing with yet another radical/banal equivocation where we fall between the obvious and extreme reading for impact and retreat to banal but non-obvious readings when challenged. But that is a terrible and disingenuous approach to discussion.
I do think it's true that some allies aren't worth having in the movement, because they're intolerably interested in running the show / dictating the terms. Sometimes organizations need to sensibly purge those people. It can also be worthwhile to wonder if you are being one of those people yourself.
Nonetheless, I think it's important to keep in mind that lots of people have crossed lines (been class traitors, race traitors, gender traitors, etc. etc.) in very important ways in the history of emancipatory movements--hell, despite everything creepy about him, John Brown is one of the most important figures in American emancipation. When there are such talented and committed figures, we shouldn't spurn them for being the wrong type. If we do, we miss out not just on an inspiring example of cross-type collaboration, but on people who might be really good at what they're doing. No John Brown may have meant no civil war and slavery persisting for generations further. (We can also look to those white Anti-Apartheid figures I mentioned before, and I'm sure many others from all sorts of struggles besides).
Furthermore, it's also important to keep in mind that there is a huge diversity of opinion within these movements, and the questions they tackle are by no means settled--so it's not like there's a 'received wisdom' everyone good ally should just listen to. There's no democratic centralism of emancipation. Rather, there's just a lot of people with a lot of different views. Even if you just wanted to follow the party line, that is complicated by the fact that there isn't one.
And finally, these movements do, at some point, need to mobilize broader support. Now, this doesn't need to happen in terms of internal party leadership: you can have your entire internal leadership be [type] and this may in some situations be called for: but still, there needs to be some level of strategy and description where action is taken that can bring a winning political coalition to bear. Maybe this isn't even a particularly broad electoral coalition; maybe it involves coopting moneyed elites instead. Whatever. But as people like ronya will teach us, there's little hope for a movement that can't get any traction with the elite, or with masses, or with ANY [fill in a socially powerful coalition here].
So yeah: don't be shitty. We should all agree with that. But I think that we should agree with the rest too.
It got walked back, what's the problem?
This is an extreme reading of the explanations before it, at that point he should already know that isn't the case with how allies act in movements. You aren't scolding SKFM for doing that in this discussion.
Tldr said more than that.
What I really wonder is why does anyone care that someone else says this. I mean "Oh no, there might be an issue on which my opinion is not super relevant"? Why does that get anyone up in arms?
It seems like the indignation is solely over the idea that maybe your opinion on racism towards black people in the US might not be given primacy. Which ... like, the indignation looks like pure "Why am I not the centre of attention" whinging.
So, did everyone disagree with the phrase "you need to shut up"? Or is everyone just pretending that it didn't happen or is everyone pretending that it can naturally and reasonably understood as "be respectful and mindful"?
As for what SKFM is doing, no I am not scolding him for the same thing as he isn't doing the same thing. It might be true that he is not understanding or otherwise misrepresenting what your and your compatriots recommend for allies, but it isn't by any means obviously willful or based on convenient equivocation and ever shifting positions.
"Shut up" is not the same as "Defer to people's lived experience of racism and consequent opinions" is not the same as "express your opinions respectfully, be mindful of the experiences of others". They are however in order of reasonability and the strategy seems to be "fall back to the less radical position when challenged" because who could disagree with the latter?
Yes. But in contrast to the claim that no one was being told to shut up, that is one of the first things said.
Because they are simultaneously being courted for support or acquiescence.
Why yes, the first step to becoming an ally IS to shut up and listen so that you gain a better understanding of the problem. Step two, however, is to used that gained knowledge and your personal experiences to help however you can. That could be by doing what your told, or also by expressing your opinions on what could be done!
So yes, he did say to shut up. But it wasn't a shut up forever and ever... But shut up until you know what the fuck you're talking about.
No-one's pretending, my last post clarified what happened via "walking back." That comment made sense directly after that, not the posts clarifying further that he could voice his opinion and remain an ally.
No, he did a different thing - like ignoring the statements about what an ally does and responding with an extreme retort that compared respectful allies to passive lackeys.
That explains his response to TL:DR's (which he retracted), not everyone else's in the continuing discussion. The issue isn't that allies can't contribute opinions, it's that they don't take over the agenda and dismiss others who have greater insight.
He blatantly ignores the political reality of a white man taking over the movement and dismissing the minority's opinions on the subject of their oppression in their own group because white men have all the answers.
Good christ, nobody here is dismissing the minority's opinions on what their oppression is or what it feels like to be oppressed or the fact of their oppression. What people are questioning, and rightly and fairly so, is whether or not this particular minority group is pursuing the right strategy in order to combat that oppression.
I mean, SKFM is part of the white power base in this country, given his (presumed) race and socioeconomic status. He probably has some good ideas about what can convince a guy like him, who basically has no dog in this fight, to give a shit and do his part, whatever that part may be.
Ok, so when do you know what you're talking about?
Edit: for clarity, as an ally, not DoR specifically.