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.
So, given the participants in blacklivesmatter are experts in what it means to be the victims of racism, and not say, utilising public opinion to access the corridors of power what follows from this?
My preference for issues where I don't have a horse in the race but I feel the issue is important (civil rights is easily the largest of these issues) is simply to signal boost where I can. Share links & stories, wear pins, etc. I don't usually shy away from my opinions on what I think should be done, but my opinions also always come with the caveat that I'm no expert and may be dead wrong about what will work or won't work.
Signal boosting is easy & cheap, so it's what I recommend to people who want to support a movement but aren't sure how.
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.
So, given the participants in blacklivesmatter are experts in what it means to be the victims of racism, and not say, utilising public opinion to access the corridors of power what follows from this?
Presumably there are people in our country who are both victims of racism and experts at using public opinion to access the corridors of power.
What do they suggest?
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.
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.
So, given the participants in blacklivesmatter are experts in what it means to be the victims of racism, and not say, utilising public opinion to access the corridors of power what follows from this?
Presumably there are people in our country who are both victims of racism and experts at using public opinion to access the corridors of power.
What do they suggest?
Probably trying to take action against poverty in general. Well, actually what they probably suggest is improving access to abortion and campaigning for paid federal maternity leave. With the second being far more likely.
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.
So, given the participants in blacklivesmatter are experts in what it means to be the victims of racism, and not say, utilising public opinion to access the corridors of power what follows from this?
Presumably there are people in our country who are both victims of racism and experts at using public opinion to access the corridors of power.
What do they suggest?
Probably trying to take action against poverty in general. Well, actually what they probably suggest is improving access to abortion and campaigning for paid federal maternity leave. With the second being far more likely.
The opinions in the field are very widespread; I'd hesitate to suggest there's a consensus.
If there is one, though, it's almost certainly that disproportionate state violence directed against black people must stop now.
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.
Wtf are you even talking about?
They are being courted for support. That does not mean you get to pick the direction too. They are saying "Aren't these good ideas, don't you agree with them". They aren't soliciting you for your ideas.
So, again, it comes down to why you feel slighted that they aren't asking you for your ideas. And that comes back to "because I feel everyone should".
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.
Wtf are you even talking about?
They are being courted for support. That does not mean you get to pick the direction too. They are saying "Aren't these good ideas, don't you agree with them". They aren't soliciting you for your ideas.
So, again, it comes down to why you feel slighted that they aren't asking you for your ideas. And that comes back to "because I feel everyone should".
If they want you to be part of a movement, saying "We don't want your input." doesn't seem super persuasive.
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.
Wtf are you even talking about?
They are being courted for support. That does not mean you get to pick the direction too. They are saying "Aren't these good ideas, don't you agree with them". They aren't soliciting you for your ideas.
So, again, it comes down to why you feel slighted that they aren't asking you for your ideas. And that comes back to "because I feel everyone should".
If they want you to be part of a movement, saying "We don't want your input." doesn't seem super persuasive.
Why?
Again, what is wrong with "Don't you like our ideas"? Why do you feel like you need to be able to input your own?
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.
This is not supported by the actual people effected by racism nor by history.
Cause what actually happens when you don't address racism directly is action against economic inequality and class and such ends up being racist.
If you think your idea is so good and it doesn't match the ideas or direction of the current movement, start your own rather than trying to hijack the existing one.
Because different people have different ideas that might be useful. A good idea is a good idea regardless of who it comes from.
This doesn't address what I asked at all. And not everyone ideas that might be useful anyway. As ElJeffe so deftly pointed out, ideas aren't independant of experience.
The actual issue I asked about is why would you feel slighted that the people who the issue is actually affecting just want you to support their ideas? Why do you feel you have to have input on the issue?
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.
This is not supported by the actual people effected by racism nor by history.
Cause what actually happens when you don't address racism directly is action against economic inequality and class and such ends up being racist.
The Irish, Italians and Polish in America faced racism once (and to some extent even now - jokes about all three nationalities are still told). Once they were no longer distinguishable lower classes racism against them greatly diminished. I'd argue that up until the 1940s, people of East Asian descent faced racism in America on levels comparable to that against blacks. Their expansion into the middle class has reduced racism against them. Racism and classism are two different things, but they're two very highly intertwined things.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
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.
This is not supported by the actual people effected by racism nor by history.
Cause what actually happens when you don't address racism directly is action against economic inequality and class and such ends up being racist.
The Irish, Italians and Polish in America faced racism once (and to some extent even now - jokes about all three nationalities are still told). Once they were no longer distinguishable lower classes racism against them greatly diminished. I'd argue that up until the 1940s, people of East Asian descent faced racism in America on levels comparable to that against blacks. Their expansion into the middle class has reduced racism against them. Racism and classism are two different things, but they're two very highly intertwined things.
True, a large part of the problem blacks face is that their skin color has become code for poor, not just in the US, but around the world(Africa being the worlds default shithole).
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I really don't accept that actions to correct economic injustice are racist
Because every time a Republican (or sometimes Democrats, like when Clinton fulfilled Reagan's dream of sticking it to the welfare queens) strikes down a measure designed to correct economic injustice, african americans are disproportionately harmed
Plus we actually have people who have really good ideas about what to do about injustice
I'm not sure what we do to stop police from being racist. I'd suggest that taking away their tools to turn young black men into felons via the war on drugs would be a solid start
Because different people have different ideas that might be useful. A good idea is a good idea regardless of who it comes from.
Orgs like BLM have every reason to be skeptical of exactly which 'good' a lot of ideas aim to serve, however. I don't mean that in a malicious sense, either; many totally pure people who really want to help believe in systems & ideals that are just rotted from the inside out with racism, and their bias in that regard twists their perception of what a good idea is.
It's also reasonable to suspect that such bias is going to be more prevalent among white people than black people, because those whom the system doesn't attack will likely have blind spots when it comes to understanding how the system strikes.
With Love and Courage
+3
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.
Wtf are you even talking about?
They are being courted for support. That does not mean you get to pick the direction too. They are saying "Aren't these good ideas, don't you agree with them". They aren't soliciting you for your ideas.
So, again, it comes down to why you feel slighted that they aren't asking you for your ideas. And that comes back to "because I feel everyone should".
The short answer is this is the result of identity politics.
+2
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
The thing about addressing this as primarily a class issue is that the experiences of black people are negatively impacted by more than just class. This is basic intersectionality; it is unfortunate to be poor and it is unfortunate to be black. Just because those two things overlap and are inextricably linked does not mean that by addressing poverty you will have addressed racism. That was the crux of why activists interrupted Bernie Sanders' speech.
+2
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered 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.
People in such positions have some ideas, certainly, but they are invariably going to take the flavor of tone policing and urging restraint. Every time.
The people who are quick to judge BLM without hearing them out would be saying the same things about Rosa Parks or MLK.
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify "shut up and listen". The idea is not that white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement, but rather that white progressives have a long history of talking over minority activists. The language of 2nd wave feminism was 'how can we get black women involved in our movement', not realizing that black women have their own unique challenges and desires. To "shut up and listen" is to not presume to know better than black people what is best for black people, especially if it takes the form of telling them to quiet down and be patient when that simply has not been working.
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.
Wtf are you even talking about?
They are being courted for support. That does not mean you get to pick the direction too. They are saying "Aren't these good ideas, don't you agree with them". They aren't soliciting you for your ideas.
So, again, it comes down to why you feel slighted that they aren't asking you for your ideas. And that comes back to "because I feel everyone should".
The short answer is this is the result of identity politics.
So tell me - what, exactly, is the problem with "identity politics"? Because from where I sit, a large part of why the concept exists is because minority groups wind up facing unique problems and challenges that require specific solutions that these groups push for.
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.
Wtf are you even talking about?
They are being courted for support. That does not mean you get to pick the direction too. They are saying "Aren't these good ideas, don't you agree with them". They aren't soliciting you for your ideas.
So, again, it comes down to why you feel slighted that they aren't asking you for your ideas. And that comes back to "because I feel everyone should".
The short answer is this is the result of identity politics.
So tell me - what, exactly, is the problem with "identity politics"? Because from where I sit, a large part of why the concept exists is because minority groups wind up facing unique problems and challenges that require specific solutions that these groups push for.
This wasn't a judgement.
I am saying the reason people tend to react against the idea of being passive allies is because A) they are being asked to engage and political engagement and affiliation is a matter of identity these days. Chances are if someone is going to jump on the #blm train they are going to see it as a part of themselves and as a direct result want to contribute as part of their own sense of self.
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Hillary is taking flak for her ties to the private prison industry.
CLEVELAND, OH -- Moments ago, organizers with GetEQUAL and Black Lives Matter disrupted Hillary Clinton’s grassroots campaign event in Cleveland, OH, demanding that she divest from private prisons and invest in the liberation of black transgender women.
The organizers interrupted Clinton’s speech in order to name the three black trans women who have been recently murdered in the state of Ohio including Cemia Dove, a black trans woman murdered in Cleveland, carrying signs that read: “Hillary: Divest from Private Prisons, Invest in Black Trans Women.” The action was part of a series of demonstrations happening this week across the country celebrating black transgender women and demanding accountability for the violence that Black transgender women face on a daily basis.
“Bankrolled by private prison companies and lobbyists like Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group, Hillary Clinton is part of the system of violence that criminalizes and kills Black trans people -- how can we take her policy suggestions to curb mass incarceration and detention seriously while she’s accepting this money?” asked Angela Peoples, co-director of grassroots LGBTQ network GetEQUAL and a disruptor of the event.
Peoples continued, “These companies and their lobbyists profit from the incarceration and abuse of Black people, especially Black trans women -- an overwhelming 41% of Black trans women report having been arrested at some point in their lives, often after having been profiled by the police.”
“Hillary Clinton must stand with Black people, especially Black trans women, by refusing to accept funds from or bundled by executives of or lobbyists for private prison companies -- and investing the money she’s already accepted from those companies in the work toward Black trans liberation,” said Rian Brown, GetEQUAL state lead and local Cleveland organizer taking part in the disruption. “Until that happens, we cannot for a moment think that Hillary believes Black Lives Matter.”
Brown added: “The actions that took place across the country on Tuesday were a call for cisgender Black folks to show up for Black trans people; we’re here to demand that Clinton divest from private prisons in solidarity with our Black trans family.”
See more from today’s action and this week’s “Trans Liberation Tuesday” under the hashtag #BlackTransLivesMatter. Pictures and video of the disruption are available on GetEQUAL’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/getequal.
Interviews available upon request.
###
GetEQUAL is a national grassroots social justice organization whose mission is to empower the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community and allies to take bold action to demand full legal and social equality, and to hold accountable those who stand in the way. For more information, go to www.getequal.org. You can also follow GetEQUAL on Facebook at www.facebook.com/getequal or on Twitter at @GetEQUAL.
Black Lives Matter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression. We have put our sweat equity and love for Black people into creating a political project–taking the hashtag off of social media and into the streets. The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.
Isn't amazing how a large amount of Identity politics is formed from the mainstream rejecting them as "Not good enough".
What I am saying is that identity politics has a strong correlation with oppressed minority groups being excluded from regular society. Black Culture as an identity is entirely a result of a long history of segregation, racism and deprivation. Its not that these people haven't tried to assimilate into mainstream culture, its that the mainstream culture wont let them. Forcing them to create their own culture in isolation.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Isn't amazing how a large amount of Identity politics is formed from the mainstream rejecting them as "Not good enough".
What I am saying is that identity politics has a strong correlation with oppressed minority groups being excluded from regular society. Black Culture as an identity is entirely a result of a long history of segregation, racism and deprivation. Its not that these people haven't tried to assimilate into mainstream culture, its that the mainstream culture wont let them. Forcing them to create their own culture in isolation.
There's also the fact that the term itself is rather othering, and doesn't exactly have the best of reputations or connotations - it's routinely used as a pejorative, to dismiss minority efforts to band together as a political bloc for power.
Similarly, it takes an intimate familiarity with being a black person to be able to contribute meaningfully to the conversation on race.
Honestly this is a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Beyond that it would 1000% doom any conversation, potential for legal change or societal progress.
edit
It also explicitly designates racism as a "black problem" that non-blacks- including various and sundry Asians, Latinos, Native American, Arab, etc people - can neither contribute to nor relate. It codifies the very division that is the problem and banishes the possibility of empathy across racial lines as if they were anything other than artificial constructs.
If it was true, there would have been no Civil Rights Act and if Jim Crowe was no longer in full effect it would only be because of a more stringent and explicit form of discrimination
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.
People in such positions have some ideas, certainly, but they are invariably going to take the flavor of tone policing and urging restraint. Every time.
Really? Every time? Every single person we're talking about, we can presume their behavior based on the color of their skin, without being wrong once ever?
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify "shut up and listen". The idea is not that white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement, but rather that white progressives have a long history of talking over minority activists. The language of 2nd wave feminism was 'how can we get black women involved in our movement', not realizing that black women have their own unique challenges and desires. To "shut up and listen" is to not presume to know better than black people what is best for black people, especially if it takes the form of telling them to quiet down and be patient when that simply has not been working.
When black people tell me that what's best for them is x y and z, I agree and say, "Here are my suggestions on how to get white America to do that," and those suggestions are not secret attempts to get them to shut up. Is that wrong? Is it impossible for you to imagine?
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.
People in such positions have some ideas, certainly, but they are invariably going to take the flavor of tone policing and urging restraint. Every time.
Really? Every time? Every single person we're talking about, we can presume their behavior based on the color of their skin, without being wrong once ever?
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify "shut up and listen". The idea is not that white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement, but rather that white progressives have a long history of talking over minority activists. The language of 2nd wave feminism was 'how can we get black women involved in our movement', not realizing that black women have their own unique challenges and desires. To "shut up and listen" is to not presume to know better than black people what is best for black people, especially if it takes the form of telling them to quiet down and be patient when that simply has not been working.
When black people tell me that what's best for them is x y and z, I agree and say, "Here are my suggestions on how to get white America to do that," and those suggestions are not secret attempts to get them to shut up. Is that wrong? Is it impossible for you to imagine?
I didn't say "all white people", I said "people in [SKFM's] position".
I'm not disagreeing with your second point; we're still at a place of trying to convince people to listen to black people to begin with rather than presuming to know better.
Furthermore, if you say "here are my suggestions" and the response is "thanks but no thanks, we're going to do it our way", how do you proceed? It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that you're not interested in supporting bad ideas or ineffective tactics, right? But that reasoning is used by lots of people to excuse inaction or dismissal because of failure on the part of black activists to meet arbitrary and shifting standards of conduct and ideology.
Shut up and listen is a poor euphemism and is over shortening the concept. Everyone should shut up and listen once in a while, cause once you stop doing that, you stop learning. Endeavor to find another way to describe the effect of overwhelming co-option and narrative flattening. I just invented those two terms and they're already less inlammatory, less concrete, and closer to the point.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
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.
People in such positions have some ideas, certainly, but they are invariably going to take the flavor of tone policing and urging restraint. Every time.
Really? Every time? Every single person we're talking about, we can presume their behavior based on the color of their skin, without being wrong once ever?
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify "shut up and listen". The idea is not that white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement, but rather that white progressives have a long history of talking over minority activists. The language of 2nd wave feminism was 'how can we get black women involved in our movement', not realizing that black women have their own unique challenges and desires. To "shut up and listen" is to not presume to know better than black people what is best for black people, especially if it takes the form of telling them to quiet down and be patient when that simply has not been working.
When black people tell me that what's best for them is x y and z, I agree and say, "Here are my suggestions on how to get white America to do that," and those suggestions are not secret attempts to get them to shut up. Is that wrong? Is it impossible for you to imagine?
And what experience do you have in getting white America to do things? Unless you've got a lot of organizational experience that I'm not aware of, then you, like 99.9999 ad infinitum percent of "allies" have neither the expertise in dealing with racism nor the experience in dealing with political organizing that would mean you have valuable insight to contribute.
If you want to march, or help raise money, or whatever, then go for it. But thinking "oh, hey, here's a great space for me to put in my two cents" is only going to crowd out the voices of people who have experience with at least half of the equation, yes.
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.
People in such positions have some ideas, certainly, but they are invariably going to take the flavor of tone policing and urging restraint. Every time.
The people who are quick to judge BLM without hearing them out would be saying the same things about Rosa Parks or MLK.
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify "shut up and listen". The idea is not that white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement, but rather that white progressives have a long history of talking over minority activists. The language of 2nd wave feminism was 'how can we get black women involved in our movement', not realizing that black women have their own unique challenges and desires. To "shut up and listen" is to not presume to know better than black people what is best for black people, especially if it takes the form of telling them to quiet down and be patient when that simply has not been working.
But "shut up and listen" is explicitly saying white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement and are doing exactly what you're decrying in the actions of "2nd wave feminism." A Latino dreamer, a woman focused on reproductive rights, a union/labor activist, a civil liberties advocate, even a poor white heterosexual dude - fuck even a rich white dude - all have their own concerns and goals. They're not simply puppets to be controlled and you have to convince them to subsume some of their priorities, to engage politically in the first place and/or to do so in support of your cause explicitly, in order to have success.
You build political coalitions using several well understood methods. You can persuade or you can ally.
If you can't do the former in a dialogue you better already be in power. If you can only get your message across in silence, you will not succeed. Rosa Parks and MLK Jr didn't tell JFK or the average white voter to shut up and listen. Malcolm X kinda did. The former were very persuasive, the second exists in the historical record largely as an ineffective figure that conservatives were about to demonize. When 7/8 of the country isn't part of your demographic group, you cant' claim special understanding to the point of exclusivity in discussion of the matter if you want to persuade more than 3/8 of the country. If you're going to explicitly make the issue of racism simply an example of identity politics, you're going to lose. You need to build empathy and understanding. Dismissing the concerns of those outside your group while demanding they address your concerns is not going to work.
For those you can't persuade, you need to ally with. In order to do that you need to be willing to discuss issues with them and you might need to compromise on what you want. And thus you need to work with other sources of power - the political parties, interest groups that are not solely based on racial justice, and voting blocs that are not black - and if you can't persuade them they should support your goals simply through persuasion you need to trade something. And black voters, even if groups like this controlled all black voters, don't have the numbers to demand strict and exclusive adherence to their viewpoints.
They're basically saying "Fuck you, we'll do it exactly our way with or without your help, now make the societal changes we want because we have been disenfranchised and thus are substantially weaker politically and economically than our numbers might indicate and really need some compassion and understanding." If you don't see why that's not a winning strategy....
I really don't accept that actions to correct economic injustice are racist
Because every time a Republican (or sometimes Democrats, like when Clinton fulfilled Reagan's dream of sticking it to the welfare queens) strikes down a measure designed to correct economic injustice, african americans are disproportionately harmed
Plus we actually have people who have really good ideas about what to do about injustice
I'm not sure what we do to stop police from being racist. I'd suggest that taking away their tools to turn young black men into felons via the war on drugs would be a solid start
You can not accept whatever you want. History doesn't care.
The truth is that efforts to address economic inequality have historical been racist. This doesn't mean all actions to correct economic injustice are racist (something no one but you has claimed) but rather that if you don't address racism directly it will simply crop up in your efforts to address other issues (like, say, economic inequality).
Cause racism and economic inequality are not the same thing and you aren't gonna fix racist issues by pretending they are.
In which Fox News coins the the phrase "Drunk on Rights" to describe BLM
I'm just kind of in awe of the stupidity on display in that statement
The problem with laughing at this is it shows EXACTLY why our side is losing.
We are over in the corner, turning on each other for not being a good enough ally, or a good enough advocate, or for saying that income is what matters, or that this or that needs to be done first.
Conversely fox news is coming up with a snappy and effective catch phrase and the right is busily working to pass small little laws that erode away at the edges of progress. Drunk on Rights is a better slogan than Black Lives Matter, because it has a strong and 'comedic' appeal to the whole group of people to whom it is targeted. Fox News doesn't care about persuading black people or their allies, but if 'middle of the road' people get a bit of a chuckle out of it and can't see why it is bad due to the 'whitewashed middle class' environment they swim in then it reinforces their perspective.
Drunk on Rights says "Look at these people, they've got the same rights as you and are wasting them. Why should you care about them? Why do they need more rights?" It's a nice little piece of gateway racism. Not TOO obviously racist, but leads you down a path of creating a group which includes you and your friends, and a group which is not you and your friends. And by framing it in terms of rights, they've lead away from racism which their target audience thinks is 'bad' and allows them to include any black friends they have in their friends group, and not the 'others' group.
What matters is not the purity of the message. Fox news is not saying 'Black people are bad people and freeing them was a big mistake' even if that is what they really believe. They frame the message for success and penetration and take the victories they can get, but are NEVER satisfied.
That's what we need to learn from them. What matters is success regardless of how it is achieved. What matters is that your lives are improved, even if someone elses got improved more. And what matters is that you aren't satisfied until you achieve utter victory.
So yes, black people should not be happy until they are as accepted as say, Irish people (and yes, that means that I think that a true perfect equity in which people who are different don't even recognize that and laugh about it is impossible, and perhaps even undesirable) but that doesn't mean you should lead off with 'You all need to understand that you are all racists, and complicit in a terrible system which is destroying my community and YOU personally must accept blame and responsibility. Your achievements, values, and yes your very existence is tainted by this abominable sin which you can never wash away. You need to feel guilty. No matter how hard you may have tried to be a better person, you swim so deep in a sea of sin and privilege that it cannot be escaped. You have inherited the sins of your parents, and your children too are guilty.'
It may be true, and it probably is, but you will never achieve anything with it. Since all it will do is make the people you are trying to reach say 'No I'm not, that pisses me off. Why would you question me like that? I worked hard to get where I did!" and to get them past that requires hours of careful attention and conversation with the minorities who have been affected to make them understand why that is true, and what it means to them as people. Since accepting that is a painful and horrible truth, and at the end of doing it, you've achieved nothing to make your lives better since the person you spent all that time persuading was ALREADY on your side.
All lives matter is a better slogan than black lives matter. Black lives matter speaks more to what is really going on, but what is really important is achieving police reform, getting better schools in the inner cities, and getting more rights and reproductive control for poor working women. The world where the response to police brutality had been the 'All lives matter' movement would be closer to effective police reform because we wouldn't be arguing about whether BLM thinks that white lives matter too.
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.
People in such positions have some ideas, certainly, but they are invariably going to take the flavor of tone policing and urging restraint. Every time.
The people who are quick to judge BLM without hearing them out would be saying the same things about Rosa Parks or MLK.
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify "shut up and listen". The idea is not that white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement, but rather that white progressives have a long history of talking over minority activists. The language of 2nd wave feminism was 'how can we get black women involved in our movement', not realizing that black women have their own unique challenges and desires. To "shut up and listen" is to not presume to know better than black people what is best for black people, especially if it takes the form of telling them to quiet down and be patient when that simply has not been working.
But "shut up and listen" is explicitly saying white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement and are doing exactly what you're decrying in the actions of "2nd wave feminism." A Latino dreamer, a woman focused on reproductive rights, a union/labor activist, a civil liberties advocate, even a poor white heterosexual dude - fuck even a rich white dude - all have their own concerns and goals. They're not simply puppets to be controlled and you have to convince them to subsume some of their priorities, to engage politically in the first place and/or to do so in support of your cause explicitly, in order to have success.
You build political coalitions using several well understood methods. You can persuade or you can ally.
If you can't do the former in a dialogue you better already be in power. If you can only get your message across in silence, you will not succeed. Rosa Parks and MLK Jr didn't tell JFK or the average white voter to shut up and listen. Malcolm X kinda did. The former were very persuasive, the second exists in the historical record largely as an ineffective figure that conservatives were about to demonize. When 7/8 of the country isn't part of your demographic group, you cant' claim special understanding to the point of exclusivity in discussion of the matter if you want to persuade more than 3/8 of the country. If you're going to explicitly make the issue of racism simply an example of identity politics, you're going to lose. You need to build empathy and understanding. Dismissing the concerns of those outside your group while demanding they address your concerns is not going to work.
For those you can't persuade, you need to ally with. In order to do that you need to be willing to discuss issues with them and you might need to compromise on what you want. And thus you need to work with other sources of power - the political parties, interest groups that are not solely based on racial justice, and voting blocs that are not black - and if you can't persuade them they should support your goals simply through persuasion you need to trade something. And black voters, even if groups like this controlled all black voters, don't have the numbers to demand strict and exclusive adherence to their viewpoints.
They're basically saying "Fuck you, we'll do it exactly our way with or without your help, now make the societal changes we want because we have been disenfranchised and thus are substantially weaker politically and economically than our numbers might indicate and really need some compassion and understanding." If you don't see why that's not a winning strategy....
Except that you're eliding over the long and ignoble history of white progressives dominating social movements, shoving minorities and their interests to the back in favor of their own. And this isn't just history - it still goes on to this day.
I really don't understand what's so ... offensive about the concept of "before storming into a group and yelling that you have the best solution that none of these other folks have thought of, maybe you should sit and listen to those in the group who've had personal experience with the problem your idea is supposed to solve. This will not only give you a better idea of what problems are being faced, by whom, and to what degree, but will also help you to gauge your idea's worth in solving the problem you're interested in helping with."
When TL;DR said "step one ought to always be Shut up and listen" I sure didn't take it as "white people have no good ideas, and are only bad, and should never talk because white privilege man." Which seems to be the way that an awful lot of people took the sentence/phrase.
I dunno. Was it just that "shut up and listen" sounds kind of harsh?
If I wanted to help out in a soup-kitchen, it seems like it'd be a bad idea for me to walk in, step behind the counter and into the kitchen, and just start throwing food/ingredients together because what people need here is food so let's get going making some freakin' food, right guys? I think things would probably go better for me if I sat down and listened to the guy in charge and found out if he needed help unloading a truck, or doing prep-work, cooking prepped stuff, serving what was already prepped/made, or cleaning, or making sure we were only allowing X number of people in at once as to not piss off the Fire Marshall, or any myriad of things that didn't just involve me going "I know best, and since I'm clearly helping solve the problem of 'hungry people' it's all good!" Same concept would apply if I were (say) moved to a new team/department at my job. Before telling them about the great solutions I have, I probably want to talk to the group and understand their situation.
Clearly this has really gotten some people's hair up, and I don't understand why. I'm not seeing the ridiculous or ludicrous or stupid part of what was said.
iTunesIsEvil on
+4
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
You can not accept whatever you want. History doesn't care.
The truth is that efforts to address economic inequality have historical been racist. This doesn't mean all actions to correct economic injustice are racist (something no one but you has claimed) but rather that if you don't address racism directly it will simply crop up in your efforts to address other issues (like, say, economic inequality).
Cause racism and economic inequality are not the same thing and you aren't gonna fix racist issues by pretending they are.
I think it's less of a concern at this point in history than in the past. It's not as if the AFL's preventing blacks from joining unions like they were back in 1890. No bureaucrat is rubbing his hands with glee at the thought of implementing a whites-only welfare policy.
You can not accept whatever you want. History doesn't care.
The truth is that efforts to address economic inequality have historical been racist. This doesn't mean all actions to correct economic injustice are racist (something no one but you has claimed) but rather that if you don't address racism directly it will simply crop up in your efforts to address other issues (like, say, economic inequality).
Cause racism and economic inequality are not the same thing and you aren't gonna fix racist issues by pretending they are.
I think it's less of a concern at this point in history than in the past. It's not as if the AFL's preventing blacks from joining unions like they were back in 1890. No bureaucrat is rubbing his hands with glee at the thought of implementing a whites-only welfare policy.
I do think that there's something to be said about the fact that the way in which change is made in this country is by gaining the support of the majority who are already in power. It's what got slavery abolished, and what got the Civil Rights Act passed. Alienating the majority will only ever result in nothing changing for the better (at best, it could always get worse), so alienating isn't practical. That doesn't mean that capitulation to the majority is in order either, or that a revolution in thought isn't necessary. They both are. The majority in power (white people) need to start to understand the reality of racism and what its effects are in this country. Only then will change begin to occur. However, if all you are doing is driving people away, you aren't getting anywhere. BLM drives people away, people who would otherwise be on their side. It's just not going to result in much of anything happening.
I looked over the BLM stuff, and the policy sections are amazing and great and not at all what I have ever been exposed to in any conversations that include BLM. All of the supporters that I have seen interact with people online have done so without any clear goals outlined. Just rage expressed. On some level, I understand the expression of rage. I mean, I'm a white middle class (probably lower class now, how many years do you have to live your adult life below the poverty line to be considered poor?) male. I have all the privileges (except wealth, and arguably religious {I couldn't get elected president in the US, but only because people are cray cray about God here}), so my understanding is limited to an intellectual one. Intellectually I know some of the history, and I can imagine that if that had happened to me and my people that I just might want to vent some rage as well. But that doesn't mean that it's practically going to be effective. Rage can only get you so far. I think that BLM isn't terribly good at getting out a message of well thought out and positive change (the stuff about broken window crimes is fucking amazing and a great step, but I'd never even heard of it!).
Also, there's something that I don't like about being an "ally." In some sense I understand it, I don't suffer the prejudices of the world like those who are members of minority groups. Because I'm not a member of those groups. Yet at the same time, I feel like those fights are my fights. I'm not an ally, removed from such, I am part of it. I believe just as much as anyone else. Maybe it's because 'ally' seems only to be used to silence someone. It isn't used to uplift, only to distance and demean. It's used to tell people that this isn't their struggle, they are simply attached to it in some secondary fashion. They don't belong to it, they are some other group. All it seems to do is distance, and divide.
I also think that it's strange that the solution to minority voices being silenced is to silence majority voices. Holy shit, things are on fire! Well, light those things on fire and then at least everyone will be on fire! Increasing the number of people that are silenced strikes me as not being the answer. It seems like encouraging the majority to encourage the minority to also speak, getting more voices speaking is the answer. Getting different voices, but the same in total seems like not reaching the end of having everyone on an equal footing.
But I'm a white heterosexual male, so this is all probably crap.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
+2
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Shut up AND listen implies someone else is talking.
Meaning, feel free to contribute as much as you want, but focus your efforts on amplifying the message, not muting it.
For example, are your friends turned off by those horrible people bothering Sanders? Would they have listened if the issue was presented differently? Present it differently to them.
For example, do your friends think All Lives Matter is a much nicer slogan? Explain to them how that removes the entire point of the movement, which is that we have a racism problem.
I really feel like all the concerns about movements are driven by people feeling upset that someone thinks they're racist, or sexist, or whatever, when obviously they're not, they're good people and those things are bad. People refuse to accept ingrained prejudices, structural racism, or anything that might suggest they have even the slightest thing to do with any of it. Witness the faintings that terms like privilege produce.
And denial of those things means the underlying issues won't get solved, so we can't just accommodate people who take offense at them.
Posts
Signal boosting is easy & cheap, so it's what I recommend to people who want to support a movement but aren't sure how.
Presumably there are people in our country who are both victims of racism and experts at using public opinion to access the corridors of power.
What do they suggest?
Probably trying to take action against poverty in general. Well, actually what they probably suggest is improving access to abortion and campaigning for paid federal maternity leave. With the second being far more likely.
The opinions in the field are very widespread; I'd hesitate to suggest there's a consensus.
If there is one, though, it's almost certainly that disproportionate state violence directed against black people must stop now.
Wtf are you even talking about?
They are being courted for support. That does not mean you get to pick the direction too. They are saying "Aren't these good ideas, don't you agree with them". They aren't soliciting you for your ideas.
So, again, it comes down to why you feel slighted that they aren't asking you for your ideas. And that comes back to "because I feel everyone should".
If they want you to be part of a movement, saying "We don't want your input." doesn't seem super persuasive.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Why?
Again, what is wrong with "Don't you like our ideas"? Why do you feel like you need to be able to input your own?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
This is not supported by the actual people effected by racism nor by history.
Cause what actually happens when you don't address racism directly is action against economic inequality and class and such ends up being racist.
This doesn't address what I asked at all. And not everyone ideas that might be useful anyway. As ElJeffe so deftly pointed out, ideas aren't independant of experience.
The actual issue I asked about is why would you feel slighted that the people who the issue is actually affecting just want you to support their ideas? Why do you feel you have to have input on the issue?
The Irish, Italians and Polish in America faced racism once (and to some extent even now - jokes about all three nationalities are still told). Once they were no longer distinguishable lower classes racism against them greatly diminished. I'd argue that up until the 1940s, people of East Asian descent faced racism in America on levels comparable to that against blacks. Their expansion into the middle class has reduced racism against them. Racism and classism are two different things, but they're two very highly intertwined things.
True, a large part of the problem blacks face is that their skin color has become code for poor, not just in the US, but around the world(Africa being the worlds default shithole).
Because every time a Republican (or sometimes Democrats, like when Clinton fulfilled Reagan's dream of sticking it to the welfare queens) strikes down a measure designed to correct economic injustice, african americans are disproportionately harmed
Plus we actually have people who have really good ideas about what to do about injustice
I'm not sure what we do to stop police from being racist. I'd suggest that taking away their tools to turn young black men into felons via the war on drugs would be a solid start
Orgs like BLM have every reason to be skeptical of exactly which 'good' a lot of ideas aim to serve, however. I don't mean that in a malicious sense, either; many totally pure people who really want to help believe in systems & ideals that are just rotted from the inside out with racism, and their bias in that regard twists their perception of what a good idea is.
It's also reasonable to suspect that such bias is going to be more prevalent among white people than black people, because those whom the system doesn't attack will likely have blind spots when it comes to understanding how the system strikes.
The short answer is this is the result of identity politics.
People in such positions have some ideas, certainly, but they are invariably going to take the flavor of tone policing and urging restraint. Every time.
The people who are quick to judge BLM without hearing them out would be saying the same things about Rosa Parks or MLK.
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify "shut up and listen". The idea is not that white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement, but rather that white progressives have a long history of talking over minority activists. The language of 2nd wave feminism was 'how can we get black women involved in our movement', not realizing that black women have their own unique challenges and desires. To "shut up and listen" is to not presume to know better than black people what is best for black people, especially if it takes the form of telling them to quiet down and be patient when that simply has not been working.
So tell me - what, exactly, is the problem with "identity politics"? Because from where I sit, a large part of why the concept exists is because minority groups wind up facing unique problems and challenges that require specific solutions that these groups push for.
This wasn't a judgement.
I am saying the reason people tend to react against the idea of being passive allies is because A) they are being asked to engage and
BLM and GetEQUAL Call on Clinton to Stand with Black Trans Women
What I am saying is that identity politics has a strong correlation with oppressed minority groups being excluded from regular society. Black Culture as an identity is entirely a result of a long history of segregation, racism and deprivation. Its not that these people haven't tried to assimilate into mainstream culture, its that the mainstream culture wont let them. Forcing them to create their own culture in isolation.
There's also the fact that the term itself is rather othering, and doesn't exactly have the best of reputations or connotations - it's routinely used as a pejorative, to dismiss minority efforts to band together as a political bloc for power.
Honestly this is a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Beyond that it would 1000% doom any conversation, potential for legal change or societal progress.
edit
It also explicitly designates racism as a "black problem" that non-blacks- including various and sundry Asians, Latinos, Native American, Arab, etc people - can neither contribute to nor relate. It codifies the very division that is the problem and banishes the possibility of empathy across racial lines as if they were anything other than artificial constructs.
If it was true, there would have been no Civil Rights Act and if Jim Crowe was no longer in full effect it would only be because of a more stringent and explicit form of discrimination
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Really? Every time? Every single person we're talking about, we can presume their behavior based on the color of their skin, without being wrong once ever?
When black people tell me that what's best for them is x y and z, I agree and say, "Here are my suggestions on how to get white America to do that," and those suggestions are not secret attempts to get them to shut up. Is that wrong? Is it impossible for you to imagine?
In which Fox News coins the the phrase "Drunk on Rights" to describe BLM
I'm just kind of in awe of the stupidity on display in that statement
I didn't say "all white people", I said "people in [SKFM's] position".
I'm not disagreeing with your second point; we're still at a place of trying to convince people to listen to black people to begin with rather than presuming to know better.
Furthermore, if you say "here are my suggestions" and the response is "thanks but no thanks, we're going to do it our way", how do you proceed? It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that you're not interested in supporting bad ideas or ineffective tactics, right? But that reasoning is used by lots of people to excuse inaction or dismissal because of failure on the part of black activists to meet arbitrary and shifting standards of conduct and ideology.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
And what experience do you have in getting white America to do things? Unless you've got a lot of organizational experience that I'm not aware of, then you, like 99.9999 ad infinitum percent of "allies" have neither the expertise in dealing with racism nor the experience in dealing with political organizing that would mean you have valuable insight to contribute.
If you want to march, or help raise money, or whatever, then go for it. But thinking "oh, hey, here's a great space for me to put in my two cents" is only going to crowd out the voices of people who have experience with at least half of the equation, yes.
But "shut up and listen" is explicitly saying white people don't have anything useful to add to this movement and are doing exactly what you're decrying in the actions of "2nd wave feminism." A Latino dreamer, a woman focused on reproductive rights, a union/labor activist, a civil liberties advocate, even a poor white heterosexual dude - fuck even a rich white dude - all have their own concerns and goals. They're not simply puppets to be controlled and you have to convince them to subsume some of their priorities, to engage politically in the first place and/or to do so in support of your cause explicitly, in order to have success.
You build political coalitions using several well understood methods. You can persuade or you can ally.
If you can't do the former in a dialogue you better already be in power. If you can only get your message across in silence, you will not succeed. Rosa Parks and MLK Jr didn't tell JFK or the average white voter to shut up and listen. Malcolm X kinda did. The former were very persuasive, the second exists in the historical record largely as an ineffective figure that conservatives were about to demonize. When 7/8 of the country isn't part of your demographic group, you cant' claim special understanding to the point of exclusivity in discussion of the matter if you want to persuade more than 3/8 of the country. If you're going to explicitly make the issue of racism simply an example of identity politics, you're going to lose. You need to build empathy and understanding. Dismissing the concerns of those outside your group while demanding they address your concerns is not going to work.
For those you can't persuade, you need to ally with. In order to do that you need to be willing to discuss issues with them and you might need to compromise on what you want. And thus you need to work with other sources of power - the political parties, interest groups that are not solely based on racial justice, and voting blocs that are not black - and if you can't persuade them they should support your goals simply through persuasion you need to trade something. And black voters, even if groups like this controlled all black voters, don't have the numbers to demand strict and exclusive adherence to their viewpoints.
They're basically saying "Fuck you, we'll do it exactly our way with or without your help, now make the societal changes we want because we have been disenfranchised and thus are substantially weaker politically and economically than our numbers might indicate and really need some compassion and understanding." If you don't see why that's not a winning strategy....
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You can not accept whatever you want. History doesn't care.
The truth is that efforts to address economic inequality have historical been racist. This doesn't mean all actions to correct economic injustice are racist (something no one but you has claimed) but rather that if you don't address racism directly it will simply crop up in your efforts to address other issues (like, say, economic inequality).
Cause racism and economic inequality are not the same thing and you aren't gonna fix racist issues by pretending they are.
The problem with laughing at this is it shows EXACTLY why our side is losing.
We are over in the corner, turning on each other for not being a good enough ally, or a good enough advocate, or for saying that income is what matters, or that this or that needs to be done first.
Conversely fox news is coming up with a snappy and effective catch phrase and the right is busily working to pass small little laws that erode away at the edges of progress. Drunk on Rights is a better slogan than Black Lives Matter, because it has a strong and 'comedic' appeal to the whole group of people to whom it is targeted. Fox News doesn't care about persuading black people or their allies, but if 'middle of the road' people get a bit of a chuckle out of it and can't see why it is bad due to the 'whitewashed middle class' environment they swim in then it reinforces their perspective.
Drunk on Rights says "Look at these people, they've got the same rights as you and are wasting them. Why should you care about them? Why do they need more rights?" It's a nice little piece of gateway racism. Not TOO obviously racist, but leads you down a path of creating a group which includes you and your friends, and a group which is not you and your friends. And by framing it in terms of rights, they've lead away from racism which their target audience thinks is 'bad' and allows them to include any black friends they have in their friends group, and not the 'others' group.
What matters is not the purity of the message. Fox news is not saying 'Black people are bad people and freeing them was a big mistake' even if that is what they really believe. They frame the message for success and penetration and take the victories they can get, but are NEVER satisfied.
That's what we need to learn from them. What matters is success regardless of how it is achieved. What matters is that your lives are improved, even if someone elses got improved more. And what matters is that you aren't satisfied until you achieve utter victory.
So yes, black people should not be happy until they are as accepted as say, Irish people (and yes, that means that I think that a true perfect equity in which people who are different don't even recognize that and laugh about it is impossible, and perhaps even undesirable) but that doesn't mean you should lead off with 'You all need to understand that you are all racists, and complicit in a terrible system which is destroying my community and YOU personally must accept blame and responsibility. Your achievements, values, and yes your very existence is tainted by this abominable sin which you can never wash away. You need to feel guilty. No matter how hard you may have tried to be a better person, you swim so deep in a sea of sin and privilege that it cannot be escaped. You have inherited the sins of your parents, and your children too are guilty.'
It may be true, and it probably is, but you will never achieve anything with it. Since all it will do is make the people you are trying to reach say 'No I'm not, that pisses me off. Why would you question me like that? I worked hard to get where I did!" and to get them past that requires hours of careful attention and conversation with the minorities who have been affected to make them understand why that is true, and what it means to them as people. Since accepting that is a painful and horrible truth, and at the end of doing it, you've achieved nothing to make your lives better since the person you spent all that time persuading was ALREADY on your side.
All lives matter is a better slogan than black lives matter. Black lives matter speaks more to what is really going on, but what is really important is achieving police reform, getting better schools in the inner cities, and getting more rights and reproductive control for poor working women. The world where the response to police brutality had been the 'All lives matter' movement would be closer to effective police reform because we wouldn't be arguing about whether BLM thinks that white lives matter too.
Except that you're eliding over the long and ignoble history of white progressives dominating social movements, shoving minorities and their interests to the back in favor of their own. And this isn't just history - it still goes on to this day.
When TL;DR said "step one ought to always be Shut up and listen" I sure didn't take it as "white people have no good ideas, and are only bad, and should never talk because white privilege man." Which seems to be the way that an awful lot of people took the sentence/phrase.
I dunno. Was it just that "shut up and listen" sounds kind of harsh?
If I wanted to help out in a soup-kitchen, it seems like it'd be a bad idea for me to walk in, step behind the counter and into the kitchen, and just start throwing food/ingredients together because what people need here is food so let's get going making some freakin' food, right guys? I think things would probably go better for me if I sat down and listened to the guy in charge and found out if he needed help unloading a truck, or doing prep-work, cooking prepped stuff, serving what was already prepped/made, or cleaning, or making sure we were only allowing X number of people in at once as to not piss off the Fire Marshall, or any myriad of things that didn't just involve me going "I know best, and since I'm clearly helping solve the problem of 'hungry people' it's all good!" Same concept would apply if I were (say) moved to a new team/department at my job. Before telling them about the great solutions I have, I probably want to talk to the group and understand their situation.
Clearly this has really gotten some people's hair up, and I don't understand why. I'm not seeing the ridiculous or ludicrous or stupid part of what was said.
I think it's less of a concern at this point in history than in the past. It's not as if the AFL's preventing blacks from joining unions like they were back in 1890. No bureaucrat is rubbing his hands with glee at the thought of implementing a whites-only welfare policy.
Meet Chad Crow, the chill grandson of Jim Crow.
I looked over the BLM stuff, and the policy sections are amazing and great and not at all what I have ever been exposed to in any conversations that include BLM. All of the supporters that I have seen interact with people online have done so without any clear goals outlined. Just rage expressed. On some level, I understand the expression of rage. I mean, I'm a white middle class (probably lower class now, how many years do you have to live your adult life below the poverty line to be considered poor?) male. I have all the privileges (except wealth, and arguably religious {I couldn't get elected president in the US, but only because people are cray cray about God here}), so my understanding is limited to an intellectual one. Intellectually I know some of the history, and I can imagine that if that had happened to me and my people that I just might want to vent some rage as well. But that doesn't mean that it's practically going to be effective. Rage can only get you so far. I think that BLM isn't terribly good at getting out a message of well thought out and positive change (the stuff about broken window crimes is fucking amazing and a great step, but I'd never even heard of it!).
Also, there's something that I don't like about being an "ally." In some sense I understand it, I don't suffer the prejudices of the world like those who are members of minority groups. Because I'm not a member of those groups. Yet at the same time, I feel like those fights are my fights. I'm not an ally, removed from such, I am part of it. I believe just as much as anyone else. Maybe it's because 'ally' seems only to be used to silence someone. It isn't used to uplift, only to distance and demean. It's used to tell people that this isn't their struggle, they are simply attached to it in some secondary fashion. They don't belong to it, they are some other group. All it seems to do is distance, and divide.
I also think that it's strange that the solution to minority voices being silenced is to silence majority voices. Holy shit, things are on fire! Well, light those things on fire and then at least everyone will be on fire! Increasing the number of people that are silenced strikes me as not being the answer. It seems like encouraging the majority to encourage the minority to also speak, getting more voices speaking is the answer. Getting different voices, but the same in total seems like not reaching the end of having everyone on an equal footing.
But I'm a white heterosexual male, so this is all probably crap.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Meaning, feel free to contribute as much as you want, but focus your efforts on amplifying the message, not muting it.
For example, are your friends turned off by those horrible people bothering Sanders? Would they have listened if the issue was presented differently? Present it differently to them.
For example, do your friends think All Lives Matter is a much nicer slogan? Explain to them how that removes the entire point of the movement, which is that we have a racism problem.
I really feel like all the concerns about movements are driven by people feeling upset that someone thinks they're racist, or sexist, or whatever, when obviously they're not, they're good people and those things are bad. People refuse to accept ingrained prejudices, structural racism, or anything that might suggest they have even the slightest thing to do with any of it. Witness the faintings that terms like privilege produce.
And denial of those things means the underlying issues won't get solved, so we can't just accommodate people who take offense at them.