Protests following the killing of George Floyd

The only oversimplification is the idea that the protests are mostly riots (they’re not), and that the riots happen out of nowhere or without any preceding event. In this case were talking about 400 years of continued and intentional oppression.

Almost no societal change happens peacefully, unless you can inform me?
I don't feel like anyone was suggesting they are all riots, I might've missed those comments though. I agree that these events haven't just come from nothing and anyone suggesting that they have obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. My point was more about people not being supportive of BLM doesn't mean they don't support equality. Personally couldn't say I know enough about the individual branches to even make a call on that.

I can't even pretend to know much about every societal change through history but the ones I have some knowledge of do tend to non-peaceful actions. It comes as a last resort thing when people have tried other avenues and nothing has been done.
Some people just take an issue with anything that affects their normal routine though, blocking a bit of traffic in the UK had people up in arms and I think everyone knows how hard life became for people watching a guy take a knee during a national anthem.
 
I was actually telling you to stop posting so you wouldn’t continue to sound foolish, then you started throwing out non sequiturs.

I don't think its your place to tell anyone to stop posting its not like you have contributed anything intelligent to the discussion. I've been consistent with my view that looting and burning is harmful to the objectives of the peaceful protestors. I'm curious now as to your education level and why it means so much to you. Are you even a grad?
 
Counterproductive is subjective, and you’re entitled to your opinion - but the existence of riots should never stop someone supporting the cause, otherwise they didn’t support the cause in the first place.

I support the cause which is not at all exclusive to the BLM organization. So let's say my support to the BLM organization and the movement is mixed.

If I was American I would certainly vote for anyone but the republicans because they amongst other things most certainly the most racists of the 2 biggest parties.
 
I don't feel like anyone was suggesting they are all riots, I might've missed those comments though. I agree that these events haven't just come from nothing and anyone suggesting that they have obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. My point was more about people not being supportive of BLM doesn't mean they don't support equality. Personally couldn't say I know enough about the individual branches to even make a call on that.

I can't even pretend to know much about every societal change through history but the ones I have some knowledge of do tend to non-peaceful actions. It comes as a last resort thing when people have tried other avenues and nothing has been done.
Some people just take an issue with anything that affects their normal routine though, blocking a bit of traffic in the UK had people up in arms and I think everyone knows how hard life became for people watching a guy take a knee during a national anthem.

Only someone who doesn’t understand what BLM is, thinks that not supporting BLM and still being in support of equality can exist together.

Yes, non-peaceful attempts at equality have failed & after 400 years, people are fed up.
Protests are meant to be disruptive, it’s in its definition - to care more about your normal routine being disrupted when peoples lives are not valued is to be in a position of privilege & apathy, so excuse me if I don’t have any sympathy for those people.

I support the cause which is not at all exclusive to the BLM organization. So let's say my support to the BLM organization and the movement is mixed.

If I was American I would certainly vote for anyone but the republicans because they amongst other things most certainly the most racists of the 2 biggest parties.

What do you understand ‘the cause’ to be?
What do you understand the ‘BLM organisation’ to be?
 
I don't think its your place to tell anyone to stop posting its not like you have contributed anything intelligent to the discussion. I've been consistent with my view that looting and burning is harmful to the objectives of the peaceful protestors. I'm curious now as to your education level and why it means so much to you. Are you even a grad?
Quite the narrow minded, narcissistic view you have there. And you berate others for not being amenable to your viewpoints. To answer your question, yes, I’ve graduated college with multiple degrees, all germane to the topic. I obviously fall short of your rigorous academic standards of debate as I have apparently offered nothing to the conversation. Or, your panties are still sandy & twisted from my offering of advice to not go down your road of thinking & embarrass yourself further. Regardless, chatting with you is chock full of tedium, somewhat akin to the pigeon / chess analogy.
 
Insulting another member
Quite the narrow minded, narcissistic view you have there. And you berate others for not being amenable to your viewpoints. To answer your question, yes, I’ve graduated college with multiple degrees, all germane to the topic. I obviously fall short of your rigorous academic standards of debate as I have apparently offered nothing to the conversation. Or, your panties are still sandy & twisted from my offering of advice to not go down your road of thinking & embarrass yourself further. Regardless, chatting with you is chock full of tedium, somewhat akin to the pigeon / chess analogy.

You have indeed been found wanting on an intellectual level and you have done nothing but brought down the average IQ in this thread. I think you should do us all a favor and not procreate. Like ever. Spare us the ignominy of having to deal with unnecessarily verbose intellectual lightweights who think sounding smart will make up for not actually having anything smart to say.

Not an insult though just advice for you.
 
Which movement? Because it's important to remember that it's not a singular movement the US BLM movement that we are talking about in this thread, isn't the same movement as the UKBLM movement who in my opinion are opportunist who tried to gain viewage by using the term BLM in their name.

I get why people who only looked at it from afar may mix things, I have even seen papers mix them in articles about these movements but people should pay closer attention.
Yeah, that's sort of what I mean. I don't think people saying they aren't behind BLM means they don't support the underlying focus of pushing for equality.
People might have different views on what BLM is about based on their interactions, and like you said there are different sections of BLM and they might have different ideologies.
 
Which movement? Because it's important to remember that it's not a singular movement the US BLM movement that we are talking about in this thread, isn't the same movement as the UKBLM movement who in my opinion are opportunist who tried to gain viewage by using the term BLM in their name.

I get why people who only looked at it from afar may mix things, I have even seen papers mix them in articles about these movements but people should pay closer attention.

In what way do you think UKBLM is opportunist?
 
You have indeed been found wanting on an intellectual level and you have done nothing but brought down the average IQ in this thread. I think you should do us all a favor and not procreate. Like ever. Spare us the ignominy of having to deal with unnecessarily verbose intellectual lightweights who think sounding smart will make up for not actually having anything smart to say.

Not an insult though just advice for you.

HAHAHAHA
 
You have indeed been found wanting on an intellectual level and you have done nothing but brought down the average IQ in this thread. I think you should do us all a favor and not procreate. Like ever. Spare us the ignominy of having to deal with unnecessarily verbose intellectual lightweights who think sounding smart will make up for not actually having anything smart to say.

Not an insult though just advice for you.
Christ almighty, are you talking into a mirror? Sorry if my vocabulary is offputting to you (cute retort, though, especially with all the words you have tossed into our conversation), but your insistence on trying to play both sides of the fence in this debate while trying to sound measured & erudite (dammit, sorry). Your knowledge or understanding of the civil rights struggle in this country is shockingly limited & is obviously swayed by recent events. That’s why I told you to stop posting about the struggle in this country. Oh well, at least I am not going to call you a Nazi for your eugenics suggestion, I’m just going to take it in stride considering from whom the post came.
 
Only someone who doesn’t understand what BLM is, thinks that not supporting BLM and still being in support of equality can exist together.

Yes, non-peaceful attempts at equality have failed & after 400 years, people are fed up.
Protests are meant to be disruptive, it’s in its definition - to care more about your normal routine being disrupted when peoples lives are not valued is to be in a position of privilege & apathy, so excuse me if I don’t have any sympathy for those people.



What do you understand ‘the cause’ to be?
What do you understand the ‘BLM organisation’ to be?
Do you the organisation or the words? I don't think you need to support any particular organisation to support a cause.

Oh I'm of a similar mindset in terms of disruption. The the systems in place are what's led to this point, that's why people are out in the streets and they need a complete overhaul.
 
In what way do you think UKBLM is opportunist?

Their name, I don't think that their name fits with their goal which is a social project that includes pretty much all social fields for everyone. They have a respectable political agenda that isn't really about BLM, so I have wondered why they are named BLM. It'ts different to BLM UK or Blacklivesmatters.com who are focused on black communities and systemic racism.

I think maybe wrongly that they picked the name BLM because it had traction due to the US movement.
 
Only someone who doesn’t understand what BLM is, thinks that not supporting BLM and still being in support of equality can exist together.

Yes, non-peaceful attempts at equality have failed & after 400 years, people are fed up.
Protests are meant to be disruptive, it’s in its definition - to care more about your normal routine being disrupted when peoples lives are not valued is to be in a position of privilege & apathy, so excuse me if I don’t have any sympathy for those people.



What do you understand ‘the cause’ to be?
What do you understand the ‘BLM organisation’ to be?

Well it's pretty comphrensive.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/15072020-what-does-black-lives-matter-believe-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+eurasiareview/VsnE+(Eurasia+Review)

Some stuff I agree with, but there are also some things I find pretty unrealistic.

But in short I support:
Racial equality before the law
Exposing police brutality and reforming police methods so less people are harmed or killed
Fighting cultural imbedded racism.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how people get so up in arms about innocent business owners having their stuff destroyed, when innocent minorities have their lives ruined on a daily basis. Neither things are good, but I don't remember all of the people up in arms about the former speaking so loudly about the latter?
They acknowledge the public execution and systematic racism of people of color but chose to spend a number of pages arguing that the loss of some over priced Nike's and some property damage negates the whole message.
Small businesses suffer these losses when there is civil unrest. It also happens when the sport team wins a championship or a group of teenagers decide to play it up.
If they are so worried about damaged property they should take a drive through some of these forgotten communities. This is where you find the real looting. Listen to some of the mothers and fathers about how they fear for their kids lives over something that is a minor inconvenience to someone like me. How multiple police units with guns drawn are called over something as fecking minor as shoplifting. I could go on and on about the bullshit and horrors black people face in this country every day and not mention Louis fecking Vuitton once.
 
Well it's pretty comphrensive.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/15072020-what-does-black-lives-matter-believe-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+eurasiareview/VsnE+(Eurasia+Review)

Some stuff I agree with, but there are also some things I find pretty unrealistic.

But in short I support:
Racial equality before the law
Exposing police brutality and reforming police methods so less people are harmed or killed
Fighting cultural imbedded racism.

How do you think any of this will be achieved? Given that almost all societal changes occur a period of violence &/or civil unrest.

Do you the organisation or the words? I don't think you need to support any particular organisation to support a cause.

Oh I'm of a similar mindset in terms of disruption. The the systems in place are what's led to this point, that's why people are out in the streets and they need a complete overhaul.

BLM is a cause. The ‘organisation’ aspect is for the purposes of donations & such. There’s no leader of BLM.
Which is why it’s confusing how so many people are conflating the two and assigning political ideologies to it in this thread alone.

Their name, I don't think that their name fits with their goal which is a social project that includes pretty much all social fields for everyone. They have a respectable political agenda that isn't really about BLM, so I have wondered why they are named BLM. It'ts different to BLM UK or Blacklivesmatters.com who are focused on black communities and systemic racism.

I think maybe wrongly that they picked the name BLM because it had traction due to the US movement.

Their name is accurate, they are for the equality of black lives with a focus in the UK. I’ve been heavily involved with some of activities a few years ago, and still have friends who volunteer for various events.
There’s been some disagreement due to the wider inclusion of other oppressed communities, but ultimately similarly to sexism, the true goal of BLM is equality for all.
In the same way BLM in the US marches for immigrants, Palestine etc because there’s no leader and no guideline for action.
Could their name be different? Possibly, but I don't think it's right to call them opportunists as a result.
 
It's funny how people get so up in arms about innocent business owners having their stuff destroyed, when innocent minorities have their lives ruined on a daily basis. Neither things are good, but I don't remember all of the people up in arms about the former speaking so loudly about the latter?
Because you have every right as a person to live your life. Average joe who have some small shop have every right to say; " Ok, i know that minorities have problems but i don't care. Don't put me in the middle of your fight.". Of course that black people also have right to fight for their cause but is that shop owner guilty for something? No
 
You keep saying these things without citing any sources.
BLM is not a homogenous group. It's just people who are not racist, fighting for racial equality. If you say you support BLM, then guess what? You're also part of this group.
In any group of individuals you will find people with differing, opposing & extreme views - those people are not representative of the entire group.
Unless what you're suggesting is people who are fighting for racial equality are also anti-capitalist. You see how ridiculous that sounds?

Secondly - you keep bringing politics in to it, which further shows your lack of understanding. To believe BLM is political, is to believe that racism is political - and therefore anyone who doesn't support BLM (which, in your words is 'too left leaning') is not only Right leaning, but also racist. Another ridiculous statement which I hope you can understand.

Once again, I leave you with this:
  • Define what the message of BLM is
  • What is the political leaning of BLM, with citations

Considering one of the key leaders of BLM stated anti capitalism is anti racism I don't think it's that ridiculous. But this is the hardcore lot at the top who hold many far left crazy ideas. Maybe the normal BLM members aren't like that.
 
There are only 2 ways this can head from this point, in my view.

1) an ever worsening cycle of resentment and violence

Or

2) a change in policing culture and accountability as well as transformative investment in the underlying causes of poor educational and economic opportunities in the poorest communities in an effort to improve equality

Given this is the US we are talking about, I expect number one to happen.
Yeah I don't see number 2 happening, sadly. It smells an awful lot like communism and with that being the case I'll stick to fascism, thank you very much.
 
Considering one of the key leaders of BLM stated anti capitalism is anti racism I don't think it's that ridiculous. But this is the hardcore lot at the top who hold many far left crazy ideas. Maybe the normal BLM members aren't like that.

Who is this 'leader'? Also what is your response to my previous post to you?

You keep saying these things without citing any sources.
BLM is not a homogenous group. It's just people who are not racist, fighting for racial equality. If you say you support BLM, then guess what? You're also part of this group.
In any group of individuals you will find people with differing, opposing & extreme views - those people are not representative of the entire group.
Unless what you're suggesting is people who are fighting for racial equality are also anti-capitalist. You see how ridiculous that sounds?

Secondly - you keep bringing politics in to it, which further shows your lack of understanding. To believe BLM is political, is to believe that racism is political - and therefore anyone who doesn't support BLM (which, in your words is 'too left leaning') is not only Right leaning, but also racist. Another ridiculous statement which I hope you can understand.

Once again, I leave you with this:
  • Define what the message of BLM is
  • What is the political leaning of BLM, with citations
 
Because you have every right as a person to live your life. Average joe who have some small shop have every right to say; " Ok, i know that minorities have problems but i don't care. Don't put me in the middle of your fight.". Of course that black people also have right to fight for their cause but is that shop owner guilty for something? No

MLK said:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Attitudes such as this are precisely why racism continues to not get solved, and it isn't uncommon.
In fact more people align with this view because they only really support racism when it's comfortable and not an inconvenience to their lives. They're happy to allow it to continue to affect others in the mean time.
 
Who is this 'leader'? Also what is your response to my previous post to you?

If you want to see what BLM stand for in terms of racial equality then go to their website. The ideas on the face of it are sensible ones that anybody can agree with. But then you start digging deeper and find their ideas for achieving this are nutty. Shutting prisons, bringing down capitalism etc. It's just not very palatable to me and misguided in the extreme when it comes to some of their views on the legal system.

Joshua Virasami - "Anti-racism is anti-capitalist, and vice versa. There are no two ways around it. An end to racism demands transformation of the global political-economic setup."
 
If you want to see what BLM stand for in terms of racial equality then go to their website. The ideas on the face of it are sensible ones that anybody can agree with. But then you start digging deeper and find their ideas for achieving this are nutty. Shutting prisons, bringing down capitalism etc. It's just not very palatable to me and misguided in the extreme when it comes to some of their views on the legal system.

Joshua Virasami - "Anti-racism is anti-capitalist, and vice versa. There are no two ways around it. An end to racism demands transformation of the global political-economic setup."

Joshua Virasami is not a leader of BLM, I suggest you stop reading the Daily Mail. He's an activist who gets involved in many causes, and has controversial views - because of his views, the media tends to paint him as some sort of spokesperson for the causes he gets involved in. On BLM specifically, he isn't a leader because there are no leaders in BLM.
So lets stick with the facts.

I'm asking you specifically, because you are the ones with these views - so once again can you respond to my post?

You keep saying these things without citing any sources.
BLM is not a homogenous group. It's just people who are not racist, fighting for racial equality. If you say you support BLM, then guess what? You're also part of this group.
In any group of individuals you will find people with differing, opposing & extreme views - those people are not representative of the entire group.
Unless what you're suggesting is people who are fighting for racial equality are also anti-capitalist. You see how ridiculous that sounds?

Secondly - you keep bringing politics in to it, which further shows your lack of understanding. To believe BLM is political, is to believe that racism is political - and therefore anyone who doesn't support BLM (which, in your words is 'too left leaning') is not only Right leaning, but also racist. Another ridiculous statement which I hope you can understand.

Once again, I leave you with this:
  • Define what the message of BLM is
  • What is the political leaning of BLM, with citations
 
Joshua Virasami is not a leader of BLM, I suggest you stop reading the Daily Mail. He's an activist who gets involved in many causes, and has controversial views - because of his views, the media tends to paint him as some sort of spokesperson for the causes he gets involved in. On BLM specifically, he isn't a leader because there are no leaders in BLM.
So lets stick with the facts.

I'm asking you specifically, because you are the ones with these views - so once again can you respond to my post?

Well even the Guardian seem to paint him as a BLM leader, he's clearly heavily involved. Not that I'm particularly bothered, I'm just using him as an example as what the hard core faction of BLM might believe in their world view.
 
Well even the Guardian seem to paint him as a BLM leader, he's clearly heavily involved. Not that I'm particularly bothered, I'm just using him as an example as what the hard core faction of BLM might believe in their world view.

You don't cite any sources, specifically from a BLM website that lists him or anybody else as a leader, or backs up anything you're saying.
You just continue to say statements without any proof and making references to newspaper articles written to get clicks based off misinformation.

He's involved because he cares about racism, like anybody should be, his views on capitalism or anything else shouldn't get in the way of that & only makes headlines to distract from the main narrative, and you feed right into it. You can't even see it, i'm literally spelling it out for you and you'll still choose to believe BLM is some left-leaning extremist political organisation with lofty ideas about ending capitalism. It's laughable to even write out that statement.

In fact looking at every single post you've made in this thread alone, I can't find a single one where you're not arguing a contrarian view that isn't representative or focused on the issue of BLM. You don't have a single post in here where you share your own original thought, idea, sympathy, support for BLM beyond something along the lines of 'racism is bad, I agree'.
 
You don't cite any sources, specifically from a BLM website that lists him or anybody else as a leader, or backs up anything you're saying.
You just continue to say statements without any proof and making references to newspaper articles written to get clicks based off misinformation.

He's involved because he cares about racism, like anybody should be, his views on capitalism or anything else shouldn't get in the way of that & only makes headlines to distract from the main narrative, and you feed right into it. You can't even see it, i'm literally spelling it out for you and you'll still choose to believe BLM is some left-leaning extremist political organisation with lofty ideas about ending capitalism. It's laughable to even write out that statement.

In fact looking at every single post you've made in this thread alone, I can't find a single one where you're not arguing a contrarian view that isn't representative or focused on the issue of BLM. You don't have a single post in here where you share your own original thought, idea, sympathy, support for BLM beyond something along the lines of 'racism is bad, I agree'.

Difficult to have an original view on such a basic principle tbh. You don't seem to agree that BLM is any kind of organisation at all and is purely a collection of individuals fighting racism. My feeling is that when it comes to how BLM want to solve racism their approach is likely too extreme. I don't think (in the UK anyway) any major overhaul is needed of things like the justice system.
 
Slavery was an evil that was rightfully abolished and it is part of history now. Nobody today is a slave or has a living relative who was a slave and the people who enslaved black people are long gone. If you were to ask for reparations who would they pay them to? The Nazis killed 6 million Jews in horrific circumstances and they paid reparations to the survivors for the suffering they endured because there were survivors. Slavery ended 150 years ago I can't begin to understand the psychological strain that must have on the people but I think white people paid a blood price for it in the American Civil War where many white boys were killed and maimed to free black people.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous take. Yes, there is no-one alive now who directly experienced slavery; but all Black people alive in the US now live in a socio-economic that directly comes from racism, the segregation that followed it, and the lip-service to equity without much actual progress that followed the official end of segregation. Similarly, everyone in the US right now lives in a society that was in many ways built on slavery. The US is now one of the richest countries in the world, and it can thus reasonably be argued that this wealth comes for an important part from how the US as a state used Black people and Indigenous Peoples for their purposes. Consequently, it is extremely reasonable to ask the current US government, as the current representative of the US as a state, to direct a significant portion of that wealth towards making society, communities, and individual lives better for Black people. (I might add there that something similar would apply to Indigenous Peoples: their suppression, eradication, dehumanization, etc. was another factor in US economic growth.)

So no, White people dying in the Civil War does not quite compensate for slavery. (Even ignoring the fact that the North's army also include Black people.)

I speak out for BLM where I can. Most people I've spoken to around this region consider BLM to be thugs and criminals. Whatever sympathy there was for black people after the George Floyd incident disappeared with the daily news of looting and burning and destruction. People are shocked by the actions of the rioters and they care for public order too much to understand why these acts of destruction are in any way justified. I would point out the difference between those who are seeking justice and equal rights and the mindless thugs who loot and burn but it seems that there is a lot of support for these thugs so maybe I'm wrong. I'm not even going to address your absurd post about big shops being looted but its no big deal because they have insurance. Looting is the criminal act of a thug that should be condemned by any right thinking person.

If you think looting, burning, and destruction have been a daily and dominant occurrence in BLM protests, then you should really reconsider your news sources. There have been massive and continuous protests all across the US, and also in many other countries, since the death of George Floyd. The extent of the rioting has been very small in comparison. So if your sources lead you to believe that BLM is predominantly turned into rioting, then you should try and get your news elsewhere, cause you have been lied to. (As e.g. Fox News absolutely does.)

I'll also go back to comments from @villain, @Adisa, and @JPRouve: there have been protests for decades, yet very little has improved for Black people since segregation officially ended. (I keep saying 'officially', cause far too little actually changed in practice to say that segregation really ended.) @Adisa quoted this "Until we have peace, you won't get justice" line, which I suppose you agree with. But as they pointed out, the point is to get back the peace - and then do nothing, cause 'people obviously aren't that unhappy so why would we bother'? So as @JPRouve keeps asking: what would you do in that circumstance, where peaceful protesting is doing virtually nothing to help you regain your humanity in society? And finally, as @villain, pointed out, MLK understood the violence very well, calling rioting the language of the unheard (in that video that was posting). If you think that's an clear rejection of rioting, then I'm afraid you're simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
Difficult to have an original view on such a basic principle tbh. You don't seem to agree that BLM is any kind of organisation at all and is purely a collection of individuals fighting racism. My feeling is that when it comes to how BLM want to solve racism their approach is likely too extreme. I don't think (in the UK anyway) any major overhaul is needed of things like the justice system.

It's not a political organisation which was your first point, and the main 'organising' it does is to raise awareness for protests to take place - once again, I will reiterate, the overwhelming majority of BLM protests are peaceful. There was a stat I posted back in June I think that said of the many thousands of protests which have taken place in the last 7/8 years, over 90-95% (I can't remember exactly) have not resulted in any arrests, injuries or reports of misbehaviour taking place. The protests don't get media attention when they are peaceful, ask yourself why that would be - and who it serves to only cover negative stories about BLM, and who it affects too.

In the UK there's a lot to do, anti-blackness is global. The US is obviously an extreme example, but that's not to say that black people in the UK are anywhere near equality.
Since you like the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/01/young-black-people-jailed-moj-report-david-lammy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-be-jailed-for-drug-offences-research-reveals
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...brutality-british-problems-black-lives-matter
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...k-evidence-of-everyday-racial-bias-in-britain
 
It's not a political organisation which was your first point, and the main 'organising' it does is to raise awareness for protests to take place - once again, I will reiterate, the overwhelming majority of BLM protests are peaceful. There was a stat I posted back in June I think that said of the many thousands of protests which have taken place in the last 7/8 years, over 90-95% (I can't remember exactly) have not resulted in any arrests, injuries or reports of misbehaviour taking place. The protests don't get media attention when they are peaceful, ask yourself why that would be - and who it serves to only cover negative stories about BLM, and who it affects too.

In the UK there's a lot to do, anti-blackness is global. The US is obviously an extreme example, but that's not to say that black people in the UK are anywhere near equality.
Since you like the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/01/young-black-people-jailed-moj-report-david-lammy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-be-jailed-for-drug-offences-research-reveals
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...brutality-british-problems-black-lives-matter
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...k-evidence-of-everyday-racial-bias-in-britain

Yes, lots to do and there's evidence of conscious racism still today. However I feel like there's a lot of problems with unconscious bias that could be the thing to target. It's touched on in some of your links - longer sentences for BAME people is one. I struggle to believe that the system is actively racist in sentencing, but I can certainly believe underlying prejudice plays a big part.

I'll add another one to the list (US based). One of the most shocking things I've ever read, because I can't believe it's conscious racism which would maybe be easier to deal with...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/black-babies-survival-black-doctors-study
 
Yes, lots to do and there's evidence of conscious racism still today. However I feel like there's a lot of problems with unconscious bias that could be the thing to target. It's touched on in some of your links - longer sentences for BAME people is one. I struggle to believe that the system is actively racist in sentencing, but I can certainly believe underlying prejudice plays a big part.

I'll add another one to the list (US based). One of the most shocking things I've ever read, because I can't believe it's conscious racism which would maybe be easier to deal with...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/black-babies-survival-black-doctors-study

I agree with unconscious bias being a problem for sure, I personally think unconscious bias is the spark that lights the flame that leads to conscious bias. For example, unconsciously thinking black youths are more dangerous, more likely to use drugs etc leads to more stop & search in black areas, which then creates a stereotype where people are preconceived to think black youths are more associated to crime than other races, this gets fed through the media - so more and more people believe it to be true, those same people will carry those preconceptions when it comes to job interviews & hiring, interacting with black people on the street or in stores etc. It's a loop that continues to spin.

Yes black women are more likely to die in childbirth than white women. This actually stems from slavery - the original ob/gyn practice was invented by using instruments on the black women slaves with no anaesthesia because the belief was that black women didn't feel pain like white women do & they aren't human anyway.

https://www.history.com/news/the-fa...logy-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves

So now you have an issue where black people are less likely to be believed about their levels of pain/discomfort when they visit the doctor - and get misdiagnosed, or are more likely to die in their care as a result. Then to compound that fact, as a result of this - you now have generations of black people who simply don't trust doctors and don't get treated - which also leads to further avoidable deaths. Another loop.

This has off-shoots of the Henrietta Lacks story - which was only 50 years ago & the Tuskagee syphilis story - about 90 years ago.

Slavery has so many branches that go beyond just the actual enslavement of black people, its embedded in large parts of society for black people.
 
I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous take. Yes, there is no-one alive now who directly experience slavery; but all Black people alive in the US now live in a socio-economic that directly comes from racism, the segregation that followed it, and the lip-service to equity without much actual progress that followed the official end of segregation. Similarly, everyone in the US right now lives in a society that was in many ways built on slavery. The US is now one of the richest countries in the world, and it can thus reasonably be argued that this wealth comes for an important part from how the US as a state used Black people and Indigenous Peoples for their purposes. Consequently, it is extremely reasonable to ask the current US government, as the current representative of the US as a state, to direct a significant portion of that wealth towards making society, communities, and individual lives better for Black people. (I might add there that something similar would apply to Indigenous Peoples: their suppression, eradication, dehumanization, etc. was another factor in US economic growth.)

So no, White people dying in the Civil War does not quite compensate for slavery. (Even ignoring the fact that the North's army also include Black people.)

Exactly. My grandfather, a child of German immigrants, grew up dirt poor in rural Missouri. After serving in WWII he took a job as a mail clerk at a bank and eventually became a VP at one of the largest banks in the world. My mother was the first person in the family to go to college as a result of this. Do you (not you @Cheimoon, just the proverbial "you") think a POC would have been able to easily have the same career path in 1950-1970 America? Yeah, probably not. Just because "things are better" does not mean they are equal, nor does hypothetical equality under the law mean everyone has equal access to it. I had the opportunity to be where I am today because my mother had opportunity afforded to her by her fathers jump up the economic ladder. POC (African American, latino, Native Americans, etc.) did not have access to that ladder, so is it any surprise they have had to struggle to claw their way up all while those at the top are trying to knock them back down?
 
Exactly. My grandfather, a child of German immigrants, grew up dirt poor in rural Missouri. After serving in WWII he took a job as a mail clerk at a bank and eventually became a VP at one of the largest banks in the world. My mother was the first person in the family to go to college as a result of this. Do you (not you @Cheimoon, just the proverbial "you") think a POC would have been able to easily have the same career path in 1950-1970 America? Yeah, probably not. Just because "things are better" does not mean they are equal, nor does hypothetical equality under the law mean everyone has equal access to it. I had the opportunity to be where I am today because my mother had opportunity afforded to her by her fathers jump up the economic ladder. POC (African American, latino, Native Americans, etc.) did not have access to that ladder, so is it any surprise they have had to struggle to claw their way up all while those at the top are trying to knock them back down?
That's a great story and perspective - thanks for sharing.

This discussion reminds me of a song by the Canadian band Wintersleep, Beneficiary. Essentially, the song is about how the singer in everything he does is benefitting from how Canadians have treated the Indigenous Peoples that live here. That has been called a genocide, and hence this chorus:

'All my days I wake up, open my eyes
Beneficiary of a genocide
Drive to work all day
Go to sleep at night
Beneficiary of a genocide'

It applies exactly to any White person living in the US today in their relationship to Black people. (And also Indigenous Peoples. And also to me in Canada.)



full lyrics

(Great band btw; although this song isn't quite their best musically and not very representative of their style.)
 
BLM is a cause. The ‘organisation’ aspect is for the purposes of donations & such. There’s no leader of BLM.
Which is why it’s confusing how so many people are conflating the two and assigning political ideologies to it in this thread alone.
There may not be any actual leaders of the movement but each chapter will have people running certain things like the social media and arranging protests. Decisions will also have to be made as to how the donations are spent.
It being decentralised can lead to each chapter protesting for a slightly different set of things, even if the core message remains the same.
A chapter in DC had a list of things they were marching for that were not just based around equality and not everyone is going to agree with everything they wanted. I disagree with your opinion that someone not getting behind them then means they don't support the fight for equality.
I could also understand people having their businesses attacked or looted having an issue with the BLM chapter they are coming across if people are branching off from their protests to do these things.
 
So let me get this straight then. You support the people who are going around causing destruction and think what they are doing is justified. Is that correct? The rule of law no longer applies to them.
I’m a mixed race South African. So we understand racism pretty well. Whilst I agree with you about differing views and opinions being good for discussion and debate, I don’t agree with the focus of your points of discussion.

You stated a post above about “progress having been made on racism” like it’s something that we should accept or be proud of. Why should anything other than complete fairness and zero racism be accepted? Even the slightest degree of racism is unacceptable and a cause with fighting/dying for.

Also, the rule of law only applies to those it serves. If it’s those exact rules of law that’s oppressing them and that they’re fighting against, then clearly there’s a contradiction in expecting them to obey those rules and laws? It’s only convenient for those that those rules and laws protect, to want to have everyone abide but those rules and laws, imo.

And the destruction of property is surely a “small” price to pay in the bigger scheme of things and in the attempt in eradicating racism and bringing about real change? Surely to focus on the destruction of property is kind of the wrong thing to really focus on, no? I don’t think anyone here would outright condone violence, looting or damage (innocent people will lose a lot) of property etc. but it’s just “collateral damage” because peaceful protests have not brought about meaningful change.

I don’t post much in this thread but that’s my view on it anyway.