BLM in the Prem

[SteveJ]

Whether we believe Black players to be generally swifter than white or not, one should bear in mind the clichéd roles people who are deemed to be certain physical types are given in football teams. For example, the idea that 'the big lad should be stick up front'. Now, how often would that kind of manager decide to give a swift Black player the chance to dictate to the team, in terms of positioning him as the thinking, 'midfield mastermind' white players are frequently deemed to be? Not very often, that's for sure. The roles players are given count for a lot, not merely in terms of careers but in terms of public perception.

 

[The Boy]

My point was drawing conclusions from contextless data without investigating the influence of other factors leads to errors, misinformation and poor decisions.

that’s funny I was pretty sure that your point was...

You'd have to either really stupid or just be obtuse to deny there are differences between different races with regards to average physical attributes (there is a reason events like the sprints in the olympics are dominated by certain ethnicities/countries), so it makes perfect sense that, on average, you'd find those differences reflected in the upper echelons of sport. I think, on average, you'd find black players to be stronger and quicker than their white counter parts and as such, in order to compete, that their white counter parts would have to work harder and/or be smarter with their use of the ball.

in fact you were so sure you made it twice

The point is denying there are differences between races is disingenuous, there is a reason the 100m Olympic final is virtually exclusively black athletes, because on average black people are faster and stronger than other races. This would mean black professional footballers are, on average, faster and stronger than their white counter parts, and also that only the hardest working and most driven white players would be able to compete.

Nothing to do with contextless data etc. Posters have tried to show you that this is a common misconception and explained why. Take the chance to read and learn. It’s actually really important because basing differences in the colour of skin is very dangerous and leads to many of the racial stereotypes that do many people still believe today. Black people are faster, black people aren’t as clever, have larger cocks etc all are wrong and all contribute to racial perceptions that are 100% wrong.

 

[Doracle]

Take a step back. Don't rush to confirm your suspicions/assumptions. Question what you believe... This is what we mean by critical thought. A number of posts on this very page have introduced the idea of environment over race but you've literally ignored them all...


Interesting.... Now apply that to yourself.

I’m sorry but I’m not even sure what you are getting at here. Can you direct me to one of the posts on this page where someone has said environment is more important than genetics? I can’t see any on this page.

I have no agenda here and am in no “rush” to confirm anything. If you have an actual point to make or some basis for disagreeing with me then, of course, I’ll happily discuss it.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Black Lives Matter has always been a Political Movement to be fair, even if it one that is (these days) strongly supported across the board. Regardless it does kind of show how it is virtually impossible to put Football above politics, even if the Premier League has done a fair job trying to be above it.

I think you're getting too hung up on organisations with BLM in their name. The movement is about the people on the street, the experiences that are being described, and the broad principle stated in the words "Black lives matter."

Beyond that, life is full of political issues. Football can't avoid that - and it's better to be on the right side of things like the "taking the knee" statement than to be punishing players for it, the way US American football team owners did.

Sport and politics have always been very, very closely intertwined with each other. Half the reason for a lot of the most heated rivalries in sport is founded on a political basis.

I understand any social issue movement will become political issue but I was talking about recent development of BLM UK tweeting about Palestine issue. It was quite weird how they out of the blue singled out Israel and decided to show their love for Palestine. What about people of Libya who are facing actual slavery and are ethnically black? Isn't the movement for them? What about Yemen people if BLM is so concerned about all the atrocities going around the world? What about Yazidi's who we hardly hear about despite being one of the worst tragedies of all time?

PL already have kick it out campaign and can endorse and educate viewers without taking political stand on world issues. Endorsing an organization which calls for abolition of police force on its actual donation page is not correct. Black lives matter campaign has hijacked the slogan and it will be better if PL stop using that. There are multiple other way of fighting racism. At the end of the day, "Black lives matter" is just another slogan, be it a powerful one, but definitely something you can avoid and still fight racism.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

I understand any social issue movement will become political issue but I was talking about recent development of BLM UK tweeting about Palestine issue. It was quite weird how they out of the blue singled out Israel and decided to show their love for Palestine. What about people of Libya who are facing actual slavery and are ethnically black? Isn't the movement for them? What about Yemen people if BLM is so concerned about all the atrocities going around the world? What about Yazidi's who we hardly hear about despite being one of the worst tragedies of all time?

PL already have kick it out campaign and can endorse and educate viewers without taking political stand on world issues. Endorsing an organization which calls for abolition of police force on its actual donation page is not correct. Black lives matter campaign has hijacked the slogan and it will be better if PL stop using that. There are multiple other way of fighting racism. At the end of the day, "Black lives matter" is just another slogan, be it a powerful one, but definitely something you can avoid and still fight racism.

You sure about that? Do calls for defunding equate to abolishing it or is that what you've inferred

 

[afrocentricity]

I’m sorry but I’m not even sure what you are getting at here. Can you direct me to one of the posts on this page where someone has said environment is more important than genetics? I can’t see any on this page.

I have no agenda here and am in no “rush” to confirm anything. If you have an actual point to make or some basis for disagreeing with me then, of course, I’ll happily discuss it.

Really?

In the vicinity of your post (that I quoted) there are other posts talking about the construct of race or genetics as you are framing it, and environment, location to be specific, although environment will also include social and economic factors as well.

Between those posts there is enough information (imo) that I don't feel like I have anything to add to it.

As for 'agenda' I never said that, you did. I was speaking about critical thought...

 

[NWRed]

that’s funny I was pretty sure that your point was...



in fact you were so sure you made it twice

Nothing to do with contextless data etc. Posters have tried to show you that this is a common misconception and explained why. Take the chance to read and learn. It’s actually really important because basing differences in the colour of skin is very dangerous and leads to many of the racial stereotypes that do many people still believe today. Black people are faster, black people aren’t as clever, have larger cocks etc all are wrong and all contribute to racial perceptions that are 100% wrong.

You misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) my point as "black men are faster runners" doesn't make me wrong.

That article you linked to says

"Just because some black people are good at something does not imply that black people in general will be good at it."

This is just obvious and although I can see how the last paragraph of my initial post could be misinterpreted to seem like I was arguing against this that wasn't my intention.

Like I said, I have no desire to get into an argument about semantics and I was inadvertantly imprecise with my language however the point remains that if there is a group of people who have, even a minor, genetic advantage when it comes to the physical attribues required to be successful in a sport (like professional football or 100m running) then it is perfectly natural that the athletes from that group who succeed in the sport would tend to do so because of that advantage and that those attributes would be commented on by those watching it. None of that requires bias or racism on the part of anyone.

Whether I was too generic with the label 'black' when I would have been more precise with the label 'athletes from all nations of west african descent' is beside the point, and I think forgivable in the context of a discussion on a movement self described as 'black lives matter'.

 

[SteveJ]

Yet when valid reasons - even if entirely personal - are proffered for refusing to wear a poppy, criticism is vast and overwhelming regardless of the reasons for defiance.
Now, on what are the first, dubious and flimsiest grounds, people call for an end to the brief endorsement of BLM by the Premier League. And, suddenly, the authorities' anti-racism campaigns are deemed to be so effective that supporting BLM is 'pointless' and 'ill-advised'...

Some of you critics protest too much, and far too swiftly, to be called objective.

 

[Doracle]

Really?

In the vicinity of your post (that I quoted) there are other posts talking about the construct of race or genetics as you are framing it, and environment, location to be specific, although environment will also include social and economic factors as well.

Between those posts there is enough information (imo) that I don't feel like I have anything to add to it.

As for 'agenda' I never said that, you did. I was speaking about critical thought...

I don’t think you are following the content of the posts I think you are referring to closely enough or, if you are, haven’t understood my post. However, if you aren’t going to do anything other than cryptically refer to some other posts or enlighten me on what exactly you disagree with in my post, then I don’t see that I can assist further.

 

[afrocentricity]

Yeah I won't lie @SteveJ ... I'm so jaded that when I hear these attitudes and other canned statements it just gets my back up and I'm automatically suspicious. I suspect it's just different perspectives (and sometimes privilege -there goes that word again), but the empathy and willingness to apply critical thought (or lack of in some cases) from some Cafe posters is definitely noted

I don’t think you are following the content of the posts I think you are referring to closely enough or, if you are, haven’t understood my post. However, if you aren’t going to do anything other than cryptically refer to some other posts or enlighten me on what exactly you disagree with in my post, then I don’t see that I can assist further.

What do you want me to do? Spoon feed you? It's on the previous page, so if you read it and still feel the same way then yes, we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[SteveJ]

@afrocentricity ~ I think you're being (typically) generous, mate. Though that does you credit.

 

[Jippy]

I understand any social issue movement will become political issue but I was talking about recent development of BLM UK tweeting about Palestine issue. It was quite weird how they out of the blue singled out Israel and decided to show their love for Palestine. What about people of Libya who are facing actual slavery and are ethnically black? Isn't the movement for them? What about Yemen people if BLM is so concerned about all the atrocities going around the world? What about Yazidi's who we hardly hear about despite being one of the worst tragedies of all time?

PL already have kick it out campaign and can endorse and educate viewers without taking political stand on world issues. Endorsing an organization which calls for abolition of police force on its actual donation page is not correct. Black lives matter campaign has hijacked the slogan and it will be better if PL stop using that. There are multiple other way of fighting racism. At the end of the day, "Black lives matter" is just another slogan, be it a powerful one, but definitely something you can avoid and still fight racism.

I never understand why some people's instant response to anyone highlighting a specific issue, for example the situation in Palestine, is to say 'what about Yemen' or wherever. Is it impossible to sympathise with a specific situation in a country without listing every other example of injustice in the world?

 

[SteveJ]

It's, tellingly, along the lines of 'That anti-capitalist demonstrator is drinking coffee from Starbucks; therefore, anti-capitalists are all hypocrites and the cause is an unworthy one.'

 

[Chesterlestreet]

As a result, the “average” black player may well be quicker and those being specifically called out as being rapid are possibly more likely to be black.

You're talking about "black players", though. Which is the problem.

When you're talking about "black players" you are using a term that has no meaning, scientifically speaking. "Black" isn't a meaningful term in the sense of a specific group of human beings who share certain identifiable and predictable traits that set them apart from other groups. "Black" is a matter of melanin levels.

And there is zero evidence, none whatsoever, that melanin levels are in any way related to either mental or physical attributes.

Why is A (considered as a "race" - which is, again, an absolute fallacy from a scientific standpoint) over-represented in certain contexts? That is a complex question and can have many possible answers. But the general answer would be: it has to do with societal structures (expectations, prejudices, conventions, realistic possibilities...whatever) of some kind.

Why haven't so-called "black" athletes made more of a mark in the area of professional cycling? Or speed skating? Or cross country skiing? Or swimming?

Or - this is embarrassingly obvious in the North-American context - where are the "black" NHL players?

Why are so many heavyweight champions in the history of professional boxing (less so in lighter weight classes, which is interesting in itself) so-called "black" individuals?

Why do we think of an "average" NBA player as a so-called "black" person?

Why is the quarterback usually (statistically this is true, even today) a "white" guy?

If you think all this is down to "racial" characteristics that simply "prevail" and make the state of affairs "natural" - well, you're wrong. Think again.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Is it impossible to sympathise with a specific situation in a country without listing every other example of injustice in the world?

Yep, that is quite impossible.

It is also hypocritical to express disgust, or even slight concern, over any atrocity committed by any regime (anywhere) if you happen to reside in a country with a shady colonial past.

Or if you pay taxes to a government (even if you didn't vote for it) that does business, on some level or other, with a state that's less than stellar in terms of human rights on the whole.

Or if you are a person who wears clothes you didn't sew, knit or weave yourself (because then, likely, your fancy pants were produced by slaves, most likely underage ones).

In fact, even if you make your own jeans (or your own bread, ice cream or mobile phones), you're probably using materials ultimately provided by slaves or children or cats with no civil rights - so there you are, shut the feck up and accept that everything is fecked. And so forth.

 

[pratyush_utd]

I never understand why some people's instant response to anyone highlighting a specific issue, for example the situation in Palestine, is to say 'what about Yemen' or wherever. Is it impossible to sympathise with a specific situation in a country without listing every other example of injustice in the world?

Yes because it shows what is the political agenda behind them. What has BLM movement has to do with Palestine? What about actual suffering of Blacks of Africa. Not a peep about actual slavery happening in Libya. Look I know it's popular in western world to shit on Israel and looks cool but the way Ozil was handled by PL when he spoke about China's attrocites shows double standards. If PL doesn't want to involve in some political issues then it should stay away from all political issues.

And yes it's suspicious how every organisation just highlight the most talked about issue in the world while sexual slavery of Yazidi's in last decade is not at all important. That bombing of schools and hospitals in Yemen is not all important. Slavery of Blacks in Libya is not all important. Why mention those and let's just talk about Palestine who no one has ever mentioned. It just shows where the funding is coming for such movement.

I am all for Palestine movement but it has no place in Black lives matter movement. One way of destabilizing your movement is to lose focus of what you want to achieve.

 

[SweetRightFoot]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/12010366/crystal-palace-distance-themselves-blm/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...f-not-wear-black-lives-matters-badges-on-air/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53242328

Starting to see the backlash to the political nature of the USA BLM organisation now. Many people, including me, have been blasted in this thread for criticizing where this movement comes from and what it's aims are. It's good to see that the higher ups are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. It doesn't take much research to find out just how far removed they are from the nature of the slogan and further research shows some pretty worrying reading concerning their funding, history and, perhaps most importantly, leadership.

For anyone out of the loop, research the foundation who handles their finances and has trained the leaders of BLM in the tools of political subversion, civil disturbance and outright domestic terrorism, the Thousand Currents. They are an offshoot of The Weathermen/Weather Underground from the 70s. Very dangerous people and it's their influence that we are seeing the backlash against, although I suspect there will still be a significant amount of people who will refuse to accept any criticism of the movement and denounce it as just racism.

 

[pratyush_utd]

You sure about that? Do calls for defunding equate to abolishing it or is that what you've inferred

This is what is mentioned on go fund me page. It's not my inference but just what they have actually written.

Developing and delivering training, police monitoring and strategies for the abolition of police.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund

Not sure if it is the official one so please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[afrocentricity]

I give posters advice, take a step back and analyse, think critically.... and the responses are basically:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/12010366/crystal-palace-distance-themselves-blm/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...f-not-wear-black-lives-matters-badges-on-air/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53242328

Starting to see the backlash to the political nature of the USA BLM organisation now. Many people, including me, have been blasted in this thread for criticizing where this movement comes from and what it's aims are. It's good to see that the higher ups are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. It doesn't take much research to find out just how far removed they are from the nature of the slogan and further research shows some pretty worrying reading concerning their funding, history and, perhaps most importantly, leadership.

For anyone out of the loop, research the foundation who handles their finances and has trained the leaders of BLM in the tools of political subversion, civil disturbance and outright domestic terrorism, the Thousand Currents. They are an offshoot of The Weathermen/Weather Underground from the 70s. Very dangerous people and it's their influence that we are seeing the backlash against, although I suspect there will still be a significant amount of people who will refuse to accept any criticism of the movement and denounce it as just racism.

I have no words...

It's a losing battle. Cannot be arsed...

 

[Doracle]

Chester - I would have thought that the general answer on cycling or swimming is less access to facilities and possibly no history of involvement in those sports (as a result of the lack of access). The quarterback point is presumably based on racial prejudice. I’m not clear on the heavyweight boxer point - why are there more black heavyweights than at the lighter weights? I can’t immediately think of a reason for that assuming it’s true. All points that require investigation and social change.

That said, those points aren’t that relevant to my point which is that there’s potentially valid reasons why commentators might, in fact, be seeing a greater proportion of black players who they would be referring to as fast. Why are 9 of the top 10 British 100m times for men from people who would I think fall within the 5% of the population who are classed as black or mixed ethnicity? Possibly it’s partially societal but I would have thought its much more likely that they fall within a subset which I think it’s probably accepted have a greater propensity for speed? Is it really a stretch to then say that might also apply to the top footballers - particularly as my assumption would be that scouts are potentially looking for black players with those characteristics (I agree with Steve’s post on this at the start of this page)?

 

[Zlatan 7]

Yeah I know mate just something I wanted to get off my chest


First, of course you should question it, question everything.

Second, the difference between UKBLM and BLMUK isn't that important if you're focusing on the actual overarching movement/philosophy/sentiment...

It's often allowing subsets?/offshoots?/sideshows?* to hijack the narrative...

*On this point, I think that if you want to look at a specific subsets agenda then you should actually look at it in more depth than 'they support this and I don't like it'.

You have to look at: Who are they? How representative are they of the whole? What are their goals? How do they fit into the bigger picture? What specific environment are they operating in? Etc...

I agree with all that

 

[Inigo Montoya]

This is what is mentioned on go fund me page. It's not my inference but just what they have actually written.



https://www.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund

Not sure if it is the official one so please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Not seen anything official bar defunding and restructuring funds

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Crystal Palace club statement

As people will have seen from our first home game, we have placed banners over our seated areas at Selhurst Park that read: BLACK LIVES MATTER.

We stand proudly alongside members of the BAME community, our players and employees, and behind the ideals and ethos of “black lives matter”. However, we would like to make clear that we do not endorse any pressure group or body that carries the same term in its name, and we strongly believe that organisations should not use this important force for change and positivity to push their own political agendas.

We want to be part of a world that is fair, inclusive and open to all. As an organisation, we recognise that we need to do more, and we will do more to contribute towards this goal

https://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/2020/july/club-statement-black-lives-matter/

 

[afrocentricity]

Crystal Palace club statement



https://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/2020/july/club-statement-black-lives-matter/

I quickly scanned, but it looks like a good statement...

 

[jus2nang]

I'm not prepared to get into this minefield of semantics with people over what you perceive my definition of race to be.

My point was drawing conclusions from contextless data without investigating the influence of other factors leads to errors, misinformation and poor decisions.

I will leave this by saying we should be celebrating differences not denying they exist.

Who's denying that differences exist?

I said that skin colour is "it's one miniscule genetic difference amongst a host of differences between various peoples but we are in fact largely the same"

I also said that there are usually more intra-racial differences than inter-racial.

Skin colour, like hair colour is one genetic component of several potential differences between humans. It actually doesn't make that much sense to use it as a defining factor other than the fact that it's instantly noticeable from a visual perspective.

But it's medical fact, that the genetic makeup of all human beings is largely the same - I believe I read somewhere that 80% or so match across all people (forgive me I don't have the exact figure, I'd have to go and look up medical studies).

Someone earlier mentioned the story of the white person that had a genetic makeup closer to an Asian than another white person. This isn't surprising to me.

 

[SweetRightFoot]

I give posters advice, take a step back and analyse, think critically.... and the responses are basically:

I have no words...

It's a losing battle. Cannot be arsed...

Typical comment

Can't engage with the ideas so just post some funny gifs and hope people ignore the message. Real critical analysis there, champ

If you gave a rats arse about all of this and critical discussions about sensitive topics like race, you'd be taking note of what I've said, maybe even doing a bit of research yourself. It couldn't hurt, could it? Sheep like you are the problem to be honest, all to willing to jump on a bandwagon with no idea of where it's headed. Get out of your comfort zone and do a bit of research, you might just learn something.

 

[afrocentricity]

Typical comment

Can't engage with the ideas so just post some funny gifs and hope people ignore the message. Real critical analysis there, champ

If you gave a rats arse about all of this and critical discussions about sensitive topics like race, you'd be taking note of what I've said, maybe even doing a bit of research yourself. It couldn't hurt, could it? Sheep like you are the problem to be honest, all to willing to jump on a bandwagon with no idea of where it's headed. Get out of your comfort zone and do a bit of research, you might just learn something.

the front on this guy fecking hell.....

 

[Cheimoon]

I'm not prepared to get into this minefield of semantics with people over what you perceive my definition of race to be.

My point was drawing conclusions from contextless data without investigating the influence of other factors leads to errors, misinformation and poor decisions.

I will leave this by saying we should be celebrating differences not denying they exist.

This is not a question of semantics though: the idea that black people are 'genetically better' (or however you want to express that) at running is simply wrong. If you are interested in this subject, a great book came out just now that looks at the scientific underpinnings (or rather: the complete lack thereof) of racism, and anything else related to supposed racial differences: "How to Argue with a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality", by Adam Rutherford. To give you a taste, here is a review. Rutherford also wrote an article in The Guardian (link) about his own book, which includes a section on exactly what you're saying (race and running). Since The Guardian is not behind a paywall, I hope it's OK to quote that section in full here:

Spoiler: Adam Rutherford on race and running.

The last white man to win the 100m final at the Olympics was Allan Wells in 1980, a year when the US boycotted the event. This was also the last time white men competed in the final, five in total. For many, this forms the basis of a long-standing assumption that black people – and more specifically African Americans, Jamaicans or Canadians – have a biological advantage for explosive energy sports.

Unfortunately, elite sportspeople are an abysmal sample on which to make generalisations about populations – they are already wonderfully freakish outliers. The sample size is hopeless, too: the total number of athletes that have competed in the 100m Olympic final since Wells took the gold is 58. Five of them were African, and not from the west African countries from where the enslaved were taken. By this metric, Africans are exactly as successful as white people in the 100m since 1980.

The argument that informs this misguided idea is that centuries of slavery have resulted in selection for explosive energy genes (about which we know very little). This is also a total nonstarter, for many reasons. Most significantly, we can look for the signals of evolutionary selection in African Americans since the beginning of transatlantic slavery, that is, genes that have proliferated in that population. A 2014 study of the DNA of 29,141 African Americans showed no signs of selection across the whole genome for any trait in the time since their ancestors were taken from their African homelands.

But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that genes were selected that related to power and strength. Why then do eastern Europeans dominate weightlifting, yet are absent from sprinting? Why do African Americans dominate in boxing, but not wrestling? Where are all the black sprint cyclists? Why is it that in the 50m freestyle in swimming in the whole history of the Olympics, the number of African American finalists is… one? None of these facts align with the slavery explanation for African American dominance in the 100m.

The transatlantic slave trade also imported millions of West African people to South America. The number of South Americans of any ancestry to have competed in the 100m finals? Zero.

The point is this: sprinters in the Olympics, or indeed any elite sportspeople, are not a dataset on which a statistician could draw any satisfactory conclusion. Yet it is precisely the data on which extremely popular racial stereotypes are based. Elite athletes deserve better praise than the belief that they have auspicious ancestry.

 

[Cheimoon]

Typical comment

Can't engage with the ideas so just post some funny gifs and hope people ignore the message. Real critical analysis there, champ

If you gave a rats arse about all of this and critical discussions about sensitive topics like race, you'd be taking note of what I've said, maybe even doing a bit of research yourself. It couldn't hurt, could it? Sheep like you are the problem to be honest, all to willing to jump on a bandwagon with no idea of where it's headed. Get out of your comfort zone and do a bit of research, you might just learn something.

The last couple of pages of this thread again and again point out that there is a difference between the BLM message in and of itself (which is just about what the slogan says, really), and the movement. The nuances of that have been discussed, and people keep repeating that popular support generally applies to the message (which is certainly the EPL's perspective), and that it's important not to confuse that with support for the movement. Yet here you are again today, talking exclusively about the movement, without indicating in any way that you are aware of the preceding discussion. That's not how you contribute to a thread. I won't go what that might imply for your thinking (there are some easy assumptions to draw that I hope are incorrect), but surely you can understand why @afrocentricity would get fed up with this stuff...?

 

[lolok]

I'd laugh if it wasn't rather depressing: there's an awful lot of 'concerned citizens' who are troubled by the Premier League endorsing Black Lives Matter in light of BLM's supposed political manifesto. It's almost as if those citizens began by not wanting the PL to endorse the fundamental message of the movement at all...

BLM's leaders don't give a dang about Black Lives. NONE. They use them as a tool to push their Marxist ideology. They don't speak up about the Black on Black crime in their neighborhoods. They haven't spoken out about the many black children that have been killed over the past month in drive bye's.

NONE, ZERO ZILCH. NONE. 5 black cops killed? Not a word. The last time BLM made alot of noise was 4 years ago-- which also happens to be an election year in the United States. This is no coincidence, this is by design. The donations aren't going to BLack Communities-- they are going to politicans, political groups and "Consultants."


"It's almost as if those citizens began by not wanting the PL to endorse the fundamental message of the movement at all."

Unfortunately BLM is now synonymous with the Marxist group. They masquerade behind a noble idea, in an effort to push their radical, damaging agenda. It's no different than ANTIFA-- who claim they are anti fascist-- and because they are uniting under a noble cause-- they feel morally justified in anything that they do. Shoot someone, loot stores, burn stores, tear down statues--- in their mind-- they are justified because they claim they are anti fascists. (But ironically they are fascist themselves.)

We all would agree fascists suck- but that doesn't mean I support this terrorist organization Antifa who runs around acting like criminals.

We can all agree that Black LIves Matter, and ALL lives matter, but that doesn't mean I support this Marxist Organization, BLM. But right now, BLM is Marxism, and Marxism is BLM because the political group is just synonymous with the name. You can't separate the 2 anymore. An endorsement for BLM is an indirect endorsement for the Marxist Group.

I'd rather the league push their anti racism campaign instead. If they felt the need to be on BLM train-- well-- I'd rather they push a new slogan which differentiates themselves from the Political Group while, to use your words, endorse the fundamental message of the movement.

If they went with "Empower Black Lives" Empower All Lives--Empower Bame-- something along those lines-- then that would be perfectly acceptable I think to everyone.


By using a different slogan, The EPL can still endorse the fundamental message that lives matter, but also completely separate themselves from this Marxist Political group. I think everyone would be for this (except the Marxists.) At least this way, donations to said new group, would actually go help the black and poor communities, unlike the donations to BLM which don't.

 

[Gibb11]

I give posters advice, take a step back and analyse, think critically.... and the responses are basically:

I have no words...

It's a losing battle. Cannot be arsed...

Maybe they have and they've just come to a different conclusion to you, I hope your not ignorant to not see this as a possibility and hold your reasoning and intellect always higher than others just because they don't agree with you.

 

[afrocentricity]

Maybe they have and they've just come to a different conclusion to you, I hope your not ignorant to not see this as a possibility and hold your reasoning and intellect always higher than others just because they don't agree with you.

Maybe they did... Doesn't mean they are right does it? You can agree with them too if you want, doesn't make you right either....

 

[ReallyUSA]

Overly doing anything is cringe. I am glad some of the black players had a chance to speak and stand up for something they know just as much as another in the States. Be swift with bans for racists and chastise them to the point of embarrassment.

 

[SweetRightFoot]

The last couple of pages of this thread again and again point out that there is a difference between the BLM message in and of itself (which is just about what the slogan says, really), and the movement. The nuances of that have been discussed, and people keep repeating that popular support generally applies to the message (which is certainly the EPL's perspective), and that it's important not to confuse that with support for the movement. Yet here you are again today, talking exclusively about the movement, without indicating in any way that you are I won't go what that might imply for your thinking (there are some easy assumptions to draw that I hope are incorrect), but surely you can understand why @afrocentricity would get fed up with this stuff...?

Don't confuse the slogan with the political organization? Got it.

Calling me a racist (easy assumptions you hope are incorrect, your own words!) and assuming I don't support black people because I criticize the political organization? Yeah you've shot yourself in the foot there.

What next? What about if I criticize Israeli treatment of Palestinians? Am I anti-semitic? Do you see the circular logic here?

I am allowed to support black people.
I am allowed to say the BLM organization (in the USA) is a Marxist front.
You're not allowed to call me a racist for that.

This thread should be locked, imo. Too much ignorance on both sides.

 

[Zambara]

The last couple of pages of this thread again and again point out that there is a difference between the BLM message in and of itself (which is just about what the slogan says, really), and the movement. The nuances of that have been discussed, and people keep repeating that popular support generally applies to the message (which is certainly the EPL's perspective), and that it's important not to confuse that with support for the movement. Yet here you are again today, talking exclusively about the movement, without indicating in any way that you are aware of the preceding discussion. That's not how you contribute to a thread. I won't go what that might imply for your thinking (there are some easy assumptions to draw that I hope are incorrect), but surely you can understand why @afrocentricity would get fed up with this stuff...?

It's impossible to talk about BLM divorced from identity politics and the radicals, because they are fundamentally intertwined with the movement.

The BLM movement - and I mean the entire activist core who brought it to life over several years, not just official webpages - operate on core arguments and presumptions; about the corruptness of our society, the supposedly questionable nature of the general public, the inappropriateness and potential 'harm' of speech, the importance of group identity over individual identity, and a bunch of other things besides.

It's also obvious that you could counter-claim that banging on against these radical causes, like I'm doing now, obfuscates the main point: inherited pain, and neglect, in black local communities.

And it's true, there's an argument that Western countries have been complacent or ignorant about generational trauma that black people often feel, resulting from the legacy of societal racism and the slavery system, and also present day racism, and failing neighbourhoods.

However, the fact that BLM has become wrapped up in the agenda of professed marxists and other headbangers, seeking division while pretending to help, is not the fault of people who point it out.

People are becoming more awake to the noxious political agendas, which is why you are seeing mainstream society stepping away from the movement.

But if society is smart, it will also see the deeper problems, and do something about it. America can't go on without a lot of rapprochement, and a new foundation of inclusion and respect, and our society has a lot of work to do too.

 

[nimic]

BLM's leaders don't give a dang about Black Lives. NONE. They use them as a tool to push their Marxist ideology. They don't speak up about the Black on Black crime in their neighborhoods. They haven't spoken out about the many black children that have been killed over the past month in drive bye's.

NONE, ZERO ZILCH. NONE. 5 black cops killed? Not a word. The last time BLM made alot of noise was 4 years ago-- which also happens to be an election year in the United States. This is no coincidence, this is by design. The donations aren't going to BLack Communities-- they are going to politicans, political groups and "Consultants."


"It's almost as if those citizens began by not wanting the PL to endorse the fundamental message of the movement at all."

Unfortunately BLM is now synonymous with the Marxist group. They masquerade behind a noble idea, in an effort to push their radical, damaging agenda. It's no different than ANTIFA-- who claim they are anti fascist-- and because they are uniting under a noble cause-- they feel morally justified in anything that they do. Shoot someone, loot stores, burn stores, tear down statues--- in their mind-- they are justified because they claim they are anti fascists. (But ironically they are fascist themselves.)

We all would agree fascists suck- but that doesn't mean I support this terrorist organization Antifa who runs around acting like criminals.

We can all agree that Black LIves Matter, and ALL lives matter, but that doesn't mean I support this Marxist Organization, BLM. But right now, BLM is Marxism, and Marxism is BLM because the political group is just synonymous with the name. You can't separate the 2 anymore. An endorsement for BLM is an indirect endorsement for the Marxist Group.

I'd rather the league push their anti racism campaign instead. If they felt the need to be on BLM train-- well-- I'd rather they push a new slogan which differentiates themselves from the Political Group while, to use your words, endorse the fundamental message of the movement.

If they went with "Empower Black Lives" Empower All Lives--Empower Bame-- something along those lines-- then that would be perfectly acceptable I think to everyone.


By using a different slogan, The EPL can still endorse the fundamental message that lives matter, but also completely separate themselves from this Marxist Political group. I think everyone would be for this (except the Marxists.) At least this way, donations to said new group, would actually go help the black and poor communities, unlike the donations to BLM which don't.

This is a shockingly ignorant post on the whole, but I'm going to limit my response to this particular part:

The last time BLM made alot of noise was 4 years ago-- which also happens to be an election year in the United States. This is no coincidence, this is by design.

This would never have erupted the way it did it if wasn't for a very specific event, namely the murder of George Floyd. Unless you're saying the spontaneous decision by millions to show their disgust for police brutality and systemic racism was somehow engineered, which is pure conspiracy nonsense.

 

[SteveJ]

What gets me about the tone of some posts in the last day or so is the notion that BLM are this terribly sinister, underhand and insincere outfit. Even if this paranoid scenario were true, how does that even begin to compare to the centuries-old and ongoing crimes of their 'opponents'; the day-to-day racism of entitled white folks; the fact that the Land of the Free celebrates itself for 'landmark' events like a Black person winning an Oscar; the endless spying and infiltration by authorities; the laissez-faire attitude of white cops in standing by while armed, white vigilantes itch for a fight; the hypocrisy that allows Black soldiers to die for their country whilst being denied care and respect back at home etc etc?

 

[TheGodsInRed]

But studies have shown that there are more intra-racial differences than inter-racial differences. Race is a complete construct based on one genetic component. There are of course differences between people originating from different geographic locations - but that's not race.


No they don't. A particular group with roots in West Africa may have a body type and muscle makeup conducive to running fast.

But what is "black"? Is an indigenous Kenyan black? Is an indigenous South African black?

East Africans generally have the body types and muscle makeup useful for long distance running.

But people consider both East and West as "black". Race is a fallacy. The black Kenyan might have more in common genetically with a white German. But no, we choose to group people based on ONE genetic component which manifests itself in the browning of the skin.

Are blondes quicker than brunettes? What about freckles vs no freckles?

The terms black or white have almost no value (other than being useful to identify someone) and until people understand that it's one miniscule genetic difference amongst a host of differences between various peoples but we are in fact largely the same, we will struggle.

Good point and I have noticed before this report came out that racial tropes used to describe players such as Pogba after playing a good game, such as athletic or powerful, when I would describe him as an intelligent or creative player.

The people who are saying ”but the black players in the premier are stronger and faster on average”, although there is no data on this I have seen, it wouldn’t surprise me if this is true, but I would argue this could be racial stereotyping in terms of scouting, coaching and selection.

For example, I wonder if Wan-Bissaka could have been a great centre back, but was pushed out wide from a young age because of an unconscious bias that black players do better on the wings.

 

[Coops73]

I popped my head in, took a look around and thought, feck that, I’m outta here.

 

[pierrethesnack]

What gets me about the tone of some posts in the last day or so is the notion that BLM are this terribly sinister, underhand and insincere outfit. Even if this paranoid scenario were true, how does that even begin to compare to the centuries-old and ongoing crimes of their 'opponents'; the day-to-day racism of entitled white folks; the fact that the Land of the Free celebrates itself for 'landmark' events like a Black person winning an Oscar; the endless spying and infiltration by authorities; the laissez-faire attitude of white cops in standing by while armed, white vigilantes itch for a fight; the hypocrisy that allows Black soldiers to die for their country whilst being denied care and respect back at home etc etc?

Because embracing this sinister Marxist racial ideology and letting it dictate culture will lead to the ruin of the country, and the end of a society where we can even discuss these things.