With “one group” you presumably mean egocentric people in general, and nothing sexed. Because otherwise: Citation or you’re a sexist. And with “citation” I mean “controlled for perceptive biases”.
Your argument sounds like the “all lives matter” of “black lives matter”.
Plenty of citations for racial bias by US police so no, it really shouldn’t. Side note though: The moment the assclowns came up with “all lives matter” the BLM folks should have jumped on it and used it themselves. It’s a much more powerful message, and impossible to argue against. With the momentum they had they could easily have drowned out the racists.
“Mansplaining isn’t real, but quick sidenote here is how the black community should have handled their outrage if they wanted to be more effective.”
Bruh.
By the way, the entire point was to explicitly point out that BLACK lives matter, because they are systematically treated as if they do not, and BLM was an attempt to force people to come to terms with that fact. “All lives matter” is a hollow, whitewashed response that gave racists a shield to hide behind, allowing them to pretend like they cared about “all” lives, but really from its inception all it meant was “White lives matter.” Co-opting that slogan would have just allowed everyone to brush the conversation under the rug even more quickly than they did.
That was Eurosplaining. I do that all the time to Yanks and I stand by it.
And yes MLK was rotating in his grave that day. What’s your point, here? That it would befit me to want to see black folks being ineffective in their struggle? Is that really where you want to go with this? Want to continue racistjacketing me?
And just for the record I already talked about this with actual BLM organisers. They agreed, it was a missed opportunity, hindsight is 20/20, etc. The issue isn’t even lack of institutional knowledge – the civil rights movement is literally the textbook case on how to stage such things effectively – the “trouble” (not really, but form this perspective) is that the whole movement gained momentum so quickly that people didn’t have time to organise properly.
Co-opting that slogan would have just allowed everyone to brush the conversation under the rug even more quickly than they did.
Co-opting that slogan would have carried on momentum that was broken by getting into a fight with the slogan. It allowed energy to be diverted from opposing specific state structures to opposing a slogan.
This isn’t about “oh but white racists came up with it so now it’s a bad slogan”, it’s not about dictionary semantics at all that’s not how social movements or political messaging works. If Black people shout “All lives matter” then that’s saying “Hey we’re people too”. It’s saying “Not just your lives matter”. It’s also saying “if your schizophrenic kid got shot by out of control police, go come join us”: It allows for a broader movement, overall more solidarity.
You know what’s the worst part about this? The right is really good at this kind of stuff. They understand it. They didn’t go out saying “Black lives don’t matter” or “Fuck N****s”, they went out chanting “All lives matter”. Because they knew exactly that it was their most effective shot at breaking BLM’s momentum, even though they sure as fuck don’t care about all lives.
The creator of critical race theory (a very famous and highly regarded black lawyer and law professor) would agree with this guy. If you don’t believe me, look him up. He argued for segregation to remain the law of the land when Brown V BoE occurred, but for ‘separate but equal’ to be actually enforced. Instead, schools were desegregated to change the global American image in the name of the Cold War and fighting the ideological battle. His vision would have seen eventual desegregation over a period of time on a set path to avoid the mass violence and angry sentiment incurred by too fast a change. The same thing happens today with trans and gay people getting called groomers. We were doing alright (in the US) until Obergefell V Hodges. Same thing.
He argued for segregation to remain the law of the land when Brown V BoE occurred, but for ‘separate but equal’ to be actually enforced.
I’m very sure I said nothing about any of that and I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with that take. Even if it actually was viable, as in politically possible to have equality while segregation continues, it sounds like ripping of a bandage slowly, very slowly.
It’s the same way the student protests for palestine died out. The message was inpalatable to the general public because of the rhetoric that was used, whether or not it’s “correct” in the academic sense.
With “one group” you presumably mean egocentric people in general, and nothing sexed. Because otherwise: Citation or you’re a sexist. And with “citation” I mean “controlled for perceptive biases”.
Plenty of citations for racial bias by US police so no, it really shouldn’t. Side note though: The moment the assclowns came up with “all lives matter” the BLM folks should have jumped on it and used it themselves. It’s a much more powerful message, and impossible to argue against. With the momentum they had they could easily have drowned out the racists.
“Mansplaining isn’t real, but quick sidenote here is how the black community should have handled their outrage if they wanted to be more effective.”
Bruh.
By the way, the entire point was to explicitly point out that BLACK lives matter, because they are systematically treated as if they do not, and BLM was an attempt to force people to come to terms with that fact. “All lives matter” is a hollow, whitewashed response that gave racists a shield to hide behind, allowing them to pretend like they cared about “all” lives, but really from its inception all it meant was “White lives matter.” Co-opting that slogan would have just allowed everyone to brush the conversation under the rug even more quickly than they did.
Not a thing I said.
That was Eurosplaining. I do that all the time to Yanks and I stand by it.
And yes MLK was rotating in his grave that day. What’s your point, here? That it would befit me to want to see black folks being ineffective in their struggle? Is that really where you want to go with this? Want to continue racistjacketing me?
And just for the record I already talked about this with actual BLM organisers. They agreed, it was a missed opportunity, hindsight is 20/20, etc. The issue isn’t even lack of institutional knowledge – the civil rights movement is literally the textbook case on how to stage such things effectively – the “trouble” (not really, but form this perspective) is that the whole movement gained momentum so quickly that people didn’t have time to organise properly.
Co-opting that slogan would have carried on momentum that was broken by getting into a fight with the slogan. It allowed energy to be diverted from opposing specific state structures to opposing a slogan.
This isn’t about “oh but white racists came up with it so now it’s a bad slogan”, it’s not about dictionary semantics at all that’s not how social movements or political messaging works. If Black people shout “All lives matter” then that’s saying “Hey we’re people too”. It’s saying “Not just your lives matter”. It’s also saying “if your schizophrenic kid got shot by out of control police, go come join us”: It allows for a broader movement, overall more solidarity.
You know what’s the worst part about this? The right is really good at this kind of stuff. They understand it. They didn’t go out saying “Black lives don’t matter” or “Fuck N****s”, they went out chanting “All lives matter”. Because they knew exactly that it was their most effective shot at breaking BLM’s momentum, even though they sure as fuck don’t care about all lives.
The creator of critical race theory (a very famous and highly regarded black lawyer and law professor) would agree with this guy. If you don’t believe me, look him up. He argued for segregation to remain the law of the land when Brown V BoE occurred, but for ‘separate but equal’ to be actually enforced. Instead, schools were desegregated to change the global American image in the name of the Cold War and fighting the ideological battle. His vision would have seen eventual desegregation over a period of time on a set path to avoid the mass violence and angry sentiment incurred by too fast a change. The same thing happens today with trans and gay people getting called groomers. We were doing alright (in the US) until Obergefell V Hodges. Same thing.
I’m very sure I said nothing about any of that and I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with that take. Even if it actually was viable, as in politically possible to have equality while segregation continues, it sounds like ripping of a bandage slowly, very slowly.
It’s the same way the student protests for palestine died out. The message was inpalatable to the general public because of the rhetoric that was used, whether or not it’s “correct” in the academic sense.