Protests following the killing of George Floyd

villain said:
They don't have to come up with some initiative, but having consistent support shouldn't be too much to ask for?
Protests are still happening, petitions are still active, fundraisers still need support, there's plenty of things to research and be a part of - expecting everything to be spoon-fed and readily available while calling yourself an ally or a supporter is paradoxical.
Click to expand...
Well that's okay then, reassuring and good to know that everything in the garden is rosy.
 
villain said:
Excellent post.
Essentially respectability politics - BLM has to have a higher degree of expected behaviour in order to convince people to keep supporting the movement.
With such high barriers to entry for societal change, it's no wonder not much actually gets done.

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

That's true and I would argue that has kinda always been the case for any social change movements. It stems from the fact most people in a society are settled, safe and fearful of change which they prefer only in small doses. Therefore proponents of change have to show impeccable behaviour to be seen as a form of change for good. Movements can very easily be branded extremist and seen as a threat, if their behaviour doesn't meet extremely high standards, even if their cause is just. The establishment representing the status quo is undoubtedly not judged by the same high standards.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Hilarious isn’t it, see, I remember that video where there was a big line of white protesters with large guns to the side of the BLM march, that was perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
That video was bonkers. It underlines how vast the cultural difference between the UK and US is at times. I can't imagine anyone Brit thinking those images were normal or reasonable in any way.
 
villain said:
...BLM has to have a higher degree of expected behaviour in order to convince people to keep supporting the movement.
Click to expand...
This is what I was trying to express when I mentioned the legacy of a structure or hierarchy. To me it's the unthinking, soft reflex to a historical legacy of control: in 2020, many are still attempting to shape - even if only by way of granting or withholding approval - the way that Black people can protest. This, I think, is a reflection of how authorities have acted in the past, and how they act now. In past ages, those authorities haven't hesitated to shoot and kill Black protesters; now, such action would draw immense criticism, and so the authorities prefer a more subtle approach (often in terms of more restrained physical action, and by influencing uninvolved people by way of slanted media coverage). A culture that accepted the use and misuse of slaves has 'progressed' to one in which Black people can be deemed 'acceptable' to the rest of us - never truly welcomed though - if they act a certain way. This acceptance-protocol is a spectrum which ranges from expected acquiescence - quietly conforming to the behavioural standards demanded - to the notion that if Black people are not 'useful' (hard-working, entertaining in some way, uncomplaining etc etc) then they are a blot or blight on society, an obstruction on the rails of its well-established smooth maintenance of the status quo; essentially, they are deemed to have the potential to derail the gravy train of power and money. Granted this also holds, to an extent, for protesters of all shade; but because of their past, forced and unchosen roles as mere servants and emblems of both societal insignificance and of slyly-hidden violence, Black people will likely always be the victims of especial scrutiny, suspicion, and glib evaluation.
 
Last edited:
MadMike said:
That's true and I would argue that has kinda always been the case for any social change movements. It stems from the fact most people in a society are settled, safe and fearful of change which they prefer only in small doses. Therefore proponents of change have to show impeccable behaviour to be seen as a form of change for good. Movements can very easily be branded extremist and seen as a threat, if their behaviour doesn't meet extremely high standards, even if their cause is just. The establishment representing the status quo is undoubtedly not judged by the same high standards.
Click to expand...

Precisely & it's a good barometer to see who's serious about supporting a movement, and who just wants to be part of a trend.
Paraphrasing the words of MLK (as much as I hate quoting MLK because he's been gentrified basically)
'the main stumbling block for the Negro is not the KK but rather the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice'
Click to expand...

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

Steve, I love you. Great post.
All of the labor is being put on the very oppressed people who are fighting for change, and when those oppressed people act in an undesirable manner (desirability here is defined by the oppressors) they are not worthy of continued support.
This yields true in most societal issues where there is an oppressed minority, so BLM are by no means unique - but consistency of the tactics remaining the same should tell those who aren't affected by x issue, that it's not as a result of the group thats actively fighting against the system that set these rules in the first place.
 
SteveJ said:
This is what I was trying to express when I mentioned the legacy of a structure or hierarchy. To me it's the unthinking, soft reflex to a historical legacy of control: in 2020, many are still attempting to shape - even if only by way of granting or withholding approval - the way that Black people can protest. This, I think, is a reflection of how authorities have acted in the past, and how they act now. In past ages, those authorities haven't hesitated to shoot and kill Black protesters; now, such action would draw immense criticism, and so the authorities prefer a more subtle approach (often in terms of more restrained physical action, and by influencing uninvolved people by way of slanted media coverage). A culture that accepted the use and misuse of slaves has 'progressed' to one in which Black people can be deemed 'acceptable' to the rest of us - never truly welcomed though - if they act a certain way. This acceptance-protocol is a spectrum which ranges from expected acquiescence - quietly conforming to the behavioural standards demanded - to the notion that if Black people are not 'useful' (hard-working, entertaining in some way, uncomplaining etc etc) then they are a blot or blight on society, an obstruction on the rails of its well-established smooth maintenance of the status quo; essentially, they are deemed to have the potential to derail the gravy train of power and money. Granted this also holds, to an extent, for protesters of all shade; but because of their past, forced and unchosen roles as mere servants and emblems of both societal insignificance and of slyly-hidden violence, Black people will likely always be the victims of especial scrutiny, suspicion, and glib evaluation.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if you keep saying that this shouldn't be the case but it is.
 
oates said:
It's almost as if you keep saying that this shouldn't be the case but it is.
Click to expand...
History repeats because it's virtually always the same, mate: same power, same hands. Our roles are set, enforced, and God help us if we complain about it.
 
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

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

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings.
 
No, you're not 'genuinely asking' - you're always doing this, and it's completely obvious.
 
arnie_ni said:
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

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

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings.
Click to expand...

Because it's not a racially motivated killing and an example of police brutality and racism.

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

We barely hear about Syria anymore and think stiill around 20.000 people have been killed in that conflict this year. Still lots of killings in Iraq as well and people dying from hunger in Yemen and Africa.
 
Shamana said:
Because it's not a racially motivated killing and an example of police brutality and racism.

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

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

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

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

Its not hypocrisy because the 2 are different. But it just doesnt sit right with me
Click to expand...

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about "white on white crime"?
 
Rado_N said:
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about "white on white crime"?
Click to expand...
Why dont whites talk about police killing whites?

I guess this isnt the place to ask questions and try to get educated on a matter that im not in a position to experience first hand.
 
arnie_ni said:
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

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

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings.
Click to expand...
arnie_ni said:
I get all that.

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

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

Spend some of the money saved demilitarising the police on improving black communities. Kill two birds with one stone.

Then invest some money on the stone violence issue.
 
arnie_ni said:
I get all that.

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

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

Well I think the affected in those communities certainly want something to be done about it, but they are not really heard and it's a difficult problem to solve due to poor social/enviromental conditions, poverty and easy acess to guns. Your regular American doesn't want to pay taxes to fund a wellfare goverment that investes equally in schools, healthcare etc.
 
'Why do prisoners so often fight amongst themselves?'
 
arnie_ni said:
I get all that.

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

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

There's literally a thread mark for the 'black on black crime' argument.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/pro...of-george-floyd.454902/page-153#post-25606259

For your sake though 'black on black crime' doesn't exist - it's just crime.
Google is free if you have any further questions.
 
Shamana said:
Well I think the affected in those communities certainly want something to be done about it, but they are not really heard and it's a difficult problem to solve due to poor social/enviromental conditions, poverty and easy acess to guns. Your regular American doesn't want to pay taxes to fund a wellfare goverment that investes equally in schools, healthcare etc.
Click to expand...
Your standard problem. Vote in politicians that promise the world and then do nothing to help the problem on the ground.

Is this just a case of poorly educated children, have nothing else to turn to except crime in a lot of cases?
 
Sara125 said:
Gonna stop you right here, buddy. ’Black on black’ violence isn’t real.

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

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

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

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

You can leave your sarcasm at the door.
Click to expand...

I don't take kindly to disingenuous questions, when the topic is about black people being killed.
If that upsets you, put me on ignore.
 
villain said:
I don't take kindly to disingenuous questions, when the topic is about black people being killed.
If that upsets you, put me on ignore.
Click to expand...
Again, i wasn't disingenuous. Im not in a position to even imagine how a young black man feels living in america, in fear from the one establishment that should be keeping them safe.

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

Otherwise what can i do?

Its hostility like this that stops people from asking questions and trying to understand other peoples problems and difficulties in life.
 
arnie_ni said:
Your standard problem. Vote in politicians that promise the world and then do nothing to help the problem on the ground.

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

I'm not even going to pretend be an expert or highly educated on that topic. It's too complex.
 
arnie_ni said:
I get all that.

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

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

What do you mean by that? What does black on black crime means to you?
 
JPRouve said:
What do you mean by that? What does black on black crime means to you?
Click to expand...
After reading Sara's post i get it.

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

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

The post villian linked me to and the subsequent replies were educational, as I hoped to achieve by asking the question
 
SteveJ said:
This is what I was trying to express when I mentioned the legacy of a structure or hierarchy.

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

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

Paragraphed that beautiful post up for you, buddy.
 
arnie_ni said:
After reading Sara's post i get it.

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

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

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

It's great that you now understand why the term is used and that it's a dishonest one. But I would still like to understand what it meant to you before today because you used it in an argument and I imagine that it meant something to you, I would like to know if you ever tried to understand it or just repeated a statistic without giving it a thought.
 
JPRouve said:
It's great that you now understand why the term is used and that it's a dishonest one. But I would still like to understand what it meant to you before today because you used it in an argument and I imagine that it meant something to you, I would like to know if you ever tried to understand it or just repeated a statistic without giving it a thought.
Click to expand...
I seen an nfl player post about a young child shot by another black man and he commented on this black on black violence needs to stop. The nfl player was also black.

It then got me thinking this is really the first time ive seen someone in the public eye mention it.

So i came here to see why.

Previous to this i didnt really give a thought as to what colour kills whats kills.

Previous to all this i was probably oblivious to racism as i just can't wrap my head around why someone would think differently of a person because of skin colour. I cant wrap my head around it.

One of my best mates is black and up until i probably didnt even realise the disadvantages he has compared to me. It just didnt enter my mind because i struggled to comprehend anyone treating another human differently because of skin colour. Its opened my eyes and id like to hope will make me a bettter friend to him
 
arnie_ni said:
I seen an nfl player post about a young child shot by another black man and he commented on this black on black violence needs to stop. The nfl player was also black.

It then got me thinking this is really the first time ive seen someone in the public eye mention it.

So i came here to see why.

Previous to this i didnt really give a thought as to what colour kills whats kills.

Previous to all this i was probably oblivious to racism as i just can't wrap my head around why someone would think differently of a person because of skin colour. I cant wrap my head around it.

One of my best mates is black and up until i probably didnt even realise the disadvantages he has compared to me. It just didnt enter my mind because i struggled to comprehend anyone treating another human differently because of skin colour. Its opened my eyes and id like to hope will make me a bettter friend to him
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering. That's the issue with this type of appealing terms in particular when it comes to societal issues, they are easily spread and only a few actually understand what it represents.
 
Armed militias flock to Gettysburg to foil 'flag-burning protest' that was all a hoax
Social media posts claimed antifa groups planned protest
Heavily armed far-right protesters descended on cemetery
Guardian said:
The posts also said organisers would “be giving away free small flags to children to safely throw into the fire.”
Click to expand...
 
JPRouve said:
Thanks for answering. That's the issue with this type of appealing terms in particular when it comes to societal issues, they are easily spread and only a few actually understand what it represents.
Click to expand...
We need to learn though. By we i mean those that dont suffer through racism or poverty or whatever is the case.

People struggle to look outside their own box much. Myself personally, im ok financially, im white, so i dont experience things others do.

Is it naivety? Possibly

Possibly even selfishness. Ive had a lot of other issues going on a various stages of my life, so i dont take, or make time to understand others issues.

All i know is without asking questions I'll never understand and I didn't appreciate a couple of the responses i got in here.

There are so many people from different walks of life here that experience things first hand, so much so id consider this forum educational in terms of learning about others.
 
arnie_ni said:
We need to learn though. By we i mean those that dont suffer through racism or poverty or whatever is the case.

People struggle to look outside their own box much. Myself personally, im ok financially, im white, so i dont experience things others do.

Is it naivety? Possibly

Possibly even selfishness. Ive had a lot of other issues going on a various stages of my life, so i dont take, or make time to understand others issues.

All i know is without asking questions I'll never understand and I didn't appreciate a couple of the responses i got in here.

There are so many people from different walks of life here that experience things first hand, so much so id consider this forum educational in terms of learning about others.
Click to expand...
Goes with the territory on here I'm afraid. You'll definitely get abrasive responses from certain posters on any given topic. Possibly they'll feel that if you are going to ask what they consider stupid questions you are going to be treated as if you are. Take it with a pinch of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.