BLM in the Prem

[SteveJ]

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.

Yeah, 'cos all that's going to come to pass. After all, the traditional powers are renowned for graciously allowing others to take those powers from them.

 

[pierrethesnack]

Yeah, 'cos all that's going to come to pass. After all, the traditional powers are renowned for graciously allowing others to take those powers from them.

Sometimes they simply lose.

 

[Cheimoon]

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.

I did not actually call you a racist. You are correct, though, that that's indeed the implication I referred to, which follows from the observation that you jump into a thread without engaging at all with the discussion that's happening and only post something that tries to discredit anything related to BLM. Doing so is not a neutral act right now; you simply can't expect people to think that way, and certainly not in the current climate. So if you want to make a nuanced point and want it to come across correctly, you need to add the nuance - i.e., engage with the discussion, explain that you agree with the general cause of the BLM message, but have concerns about the BLM organization(s). These are difficult and often bitter discussions, so tone of voice and nuance matter a lot.

Edit: I felt I didn't say this right. In short, in the current charged climate, we all have to watch our words to make sure they are interpreted as intended. Your post only addressed one aspect of the BLM discussion we've been having without mentioning that context, which suggests that you are dismissing all of BLM. What I meant all along, is that that opens you up to accusations of racism. If you want to avoid that, I think more nuance and context is required.

 

[Camilo]

The world has gone mental. This whole thing is mental. Truly bonkers.

 

[Cheimoon]

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.

I have to admit that I don't actually know anything about the political movement, so I don't know if you are right or are overstating their agenda. For myself, I don't really care. I support the general BLM cause (anti-racism, equity, etc.), but I can do so through my actions and discussions, and I don't actually have to say or write 'black lives matter' for that. In that context, it has no bearing on my own circumstances or context what the BLM organization(s) do or what I think about them. (I keep writing that '(s)', as I don't even know if there is one international group, or if it's a network of local groups.)

Sorry if that's a bit of a cop-out. There is a reasonable discussion to be had about whether the EPL might have used a different slogan for the shirts, to avoid confusion. But I don't think this 'issue' about the organization(s) had come to light as much when they decided to go with BLM. Now that they have, changing it to something else would stir up much more discussion, and would place the EPL in a more difficult position than just retaining BLM and explaining that it's about message whenever necessary. In the end, surely people are happier about the attention for the BLM cause than that they are worried about supporting the BLM organization(s)!

As for the politics: I would agree that it's not particularly helpful for any group to be vocal about its marxist sympathies, as that's not a popular thing around the world. All the same, I get that people who care a lot about equity would have socialist tendencies (as it's equity-focused) - although there are a lot of nuances between 'I want to strengthen the welfare state' and 'full-blown marxism'. I would also point out that marxism as a theory has nothing to do with fascism (I saw others confuse those above), and I would argue that full-on libertarianism (which is much more acceptable somehow) will have worse societal outcomes than full-on marxism. (Which is not the same as communism as implemented in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. - which was indeed rather fascist.)

But I'm getting into political theory now, and that sort of nuance goes nowhere in the public place. I would just go back to what I said earlier in this thread: I wish BLM was only the message, and the organization(s) had a different name to promote that message and whatever else they're into. But it is what it is. You can't change the message now that it's known worldwide. You could petition the organization(s) to help the cause by changing their name though!

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?

While that's true, there's also 'two wrongs doesn't make a right'. Although I would argue that supporting marxism (and whatever else these organizations stand for - but don't actually practice, since they are not in a position of power) doesn't go quite as far as everything has happened and continues to happen to black people!

 

[roseguy64]

Can someone explain how when complaining about racism or systemic abuse about black people is okay but as soon as you talk about systemic abuse of Palestinians it is suddenly political?

Because people conflate criticism of Israel as a criticism of Jews.

 

[Raees]

Because people conflate criticism of Israel as a criticism of Jews.

It’s wrong and rightfully needs to be called out.

 

[Cheimoon]

Not really on-topic in a BLM thread, but to be fair, it is a little more complicated with Israel and the Palestinians. To give you a sense: the state of Israel has been under threat by its neighbours in various ways pretty much since its inception, so you can understand Israel's attitude towards its territory and neighbours from that perspectives. You could argue in turn that any neighbour would be unhappy by having a new state imposed on them by the international community (i.e., Israel after WW2), but the inception of the state of Israel is more gradual and complex than that. There is also the part where Palestinian terrorist groups (PLO and Hamas) and their friends (Hezbollah) have not done the best job getting sympathy for the Palestinian case and furthered strengthened Israel's approach to its safety - although in turn, you can then argue that the Palestinians have been mistreated since the state of Israel officially came to be, have good cause to be angry, and as a non-state entity have never had any military power outside terrorism. All the same, the Palestinians have not only been mistreated by Israel, but also by neighbouring countries, which are happy to say it's all Israel's fault and hence don't do much to actually help the Palestinians. But then there's also the situations where Arabic citizens of Israel are pretty much second-rate citizens, and that the Palestinian inhabitants of the areas Israel is annexing now won't have voting rights in Israel.

Anyway, all that to say that it's a big ol' mess. Add in concerns about racism, and basically it becomes impossible to take up any position without being accused of either anti-Semitism or blind love of Israel...

 

[sammsky1]

For FA and Premier League to prove their support for movements like BLM and Kick It Out is genuine, I think its needs to transform its BAME employee representation across the entire infrastructure of the game in UK.

Eg: Whilst racial discrimination at player level would be self limiting, hence we see very good cross cultural representation; it's much poorer in club administration, management, coaching, referee's and even match attending fans.

It's a strange one in that whilst many club have foreign owners from across the globe, football club boardrooms remain predominately white, there are virtually no black managers of EPL referee's and % BAME match going fans is less than national or local populations. (not withstanding Man United's famous bearded Sikhs behind the managers seat)