You make me wonder what if the slaves were not all just blacks, the racism we see today might not be so bad if their were white slaves too. During the middle ages white slavery along Europeans was discourage by the church. But with blacks people were encouraged by a idea that they were descendants of some dude who killed his bro in the bible and their dark skin was mark of this, leading to it being ok to enslaved them.
Will you have the Arab slave trade going on for a good long while for the Portuguese really getting involved. And when for example someone like John Locke was alive slavery wasn’t in its chattle form it was still very much looking like the standards of indentured servitude. Which wasn’t too far up from the Arabic system. Mind you though depending where you ended up as a slave you could become incredibly powerful. Looking at the janissaries and the Harem of the Ottoman Court they could gain power that rival Kings an eclipse the Sultan. Mind you for the majority of people slavery was still terrible. And the thing is to the different tribes in the Americas weren’t against the idea of slavery they been Trading each other since raids going back Millenia. It wasn’t shocking to the indigenous tribes of the Americas. That justification came around because they had a justify the horrible nature nemadji the plantation system is something picked up in Spanish they had to go and justify the horrible treatment they were causing these people specially because they were christianizing them. Trust me to Logics is terrible. How do I get we f***** up once you get deep into a system like this it’s a really hard to backpedal out of it because an anyone with him now a steak in it are scared shitless of pulling out because you’re going to get slaughtered. Besides of the economic reasons and the moral hypocrisy that was on the back of every Virginians mind during the legislation process of the Constitution.
I think LBJ probably put it best (being a former southern racist himself):
“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
Class inequality and racial inequality are intertwined, with one feeding into the other. There’s no effective way to raise full consciousness of the former and effect change without the latter. It’s not a coincidence that the Republican Party has turned out as both the party of hating the poor and hating black people.
It’s not just that. Racial discrimination in hiring practices, policing, and unequally implemented laws mean that the building of generational wealth is both dis-incentivized and made considerably harder for certain very large groups of people. Fighting for economic justice without fighting for social justice on a systemic level (beyond integration and outreach programmes) will just lead to economic tiers along racial lines, with a few lucky PoC groups (like mine, in the current case) being “allowed” to sit at the front of the bus.
“All Lives Matter” has already been co-opted as a slogan by the sorts of people who would rather like to say “Black Lives Don’t Matter” without sounding too racist to be employable.
I can’t remember who it was, but I recall someone saying something to the effect of “if you got half the food everyone else at the table got, told your family you didn’t have enough food, and was given the response that “we all don’t have enough food”, that would annoy you too.”
I understand that America has a serious issue with how it’s law enforcement agencies handle African Americans (Seriously the deaths are far too high.), as exemplified by the I can’t breath quotes (Which are all too real, and its frankly disgusting that it happened in the first place.) and I do agree with the general (Or what should be the general message of BLM, which is to breakdown the last barriers, the last vestiges of the Old South, and stop Police officers from gunning people down)…
But ! (The famous I’m not blank but…which is used against everyone with a different opinion, not really how I think just how everyone views it.) its incredibly hyperbolic and inflammatory to say that the All lives Matter movement is just a clever way so saying Black Lives Don’t Matter (Like even taken literally one message holds all life up, and the other does exactly what its arguing against.). (Its that kind of reasoning, the “if your not for us your against us” which has increased the tribalization of America, increasing the illusionary barriers of race, religion and nationality. Which can be seen by Universities in American trying to keep a particular group of people out based on skin colour. Or the Whole issue of Trump )
In my personal view everyone’s lives, the people closest too you, even strangers (Though, those you love will always be closer.) matter (What is matter, never mind, what is mind, doesn’t matter.)
I digress, and will go back on track, Police Lives (Blue lives) Do matter, (After all for all their faults American Police still put their lives on the line, even if there are Bad Apples that should, and in a better world would be removed.) and it seems like the Bad Apples (Or extremists of the BLM movement) are advocating for their lives to be less than meaningless, perhaps as an ironic reversal but still inexcusable. Especially given the rioting (Whatever happened to peaceful protest, Gandhi didn’t free India from the oppressive heel of Britain by calling for the deaths of every brit, and burning all the shops in the streets.), and its ties to George Sorous. (Gotta love the hypocritical funded by Geogy Anti-fa, giving the far right the excuse to fight with weapons in a battle they would have lost with words.)
Sorry about how long winded this is, and I don’t mean to sound too aggressive, it’s just people seem to be focusing more and more on if you see blank individual you must help because their a Blank, and not because their a human being too, not because its common sense. Too use you family example, it’d be if the food was off or something to that effect, and you only helped the people that ate less, rather than saving everyone. If any one persons life matter, than everyone’s should, life is either invaluable or worthless…If its the former than a movement live All Lives Matter means more and is not hyopcirtical, if its the latter than everyones lives are wroth the same nothing, to be crushed under the heel of Mega Corps, Nobles, Merchant Princes, Mob Justice or Murderers.
The problem is systemic: American police aren’t really subject to the oversight necessary to be held accountable for overwhelming use of force, and as the DoJ report on Ferguson brought up, a lot of police departments use that lack of oversight to target particular racial groups (especially Black people) for their own fun and profit. Police officers do risk their lives on the job, which is why they’ve been given wide ranging powers, including the ability to commit state-sanctioned violence to compensate. In return, they should be held to higher standards of behaviour, just as they are held to higher standards of marksmanship and physical fitness.
The reason for the anger behind BLM (among others) is the fact that not only have calls for greater oversight been resisted by police officers’ unions and their supporters, but also by the fact that there seems to be no credible attempt to address a seemingly widespread abuse of power, steady militarisation, and a perception that the police will favour certain racial and political groups over others. There’s a reason why “ACAB” (“All Cops Are Bastards”) is an increasingly common slogan among the American libertarian-left these days.
Gandhi didn’t free India, and his one substantive attempt at trying to free India (The “Quit India Movement”) was such a colossal failure (in addition to effectively making him an Axis fifth-columnist) that it actually contributed strongly to the partition of India when it did gain independence.
If anyone freed India, it was probably Subhas Chandra Bose, in his role as the leader of the Indische Legion, and later the Indian National Army. The fact that an Indian nationalist was willing to defect to the side of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, start recruiting an army, and have thousands of supposedly loyal Indian PoWs join him in the name of freeing India through violence was what convinced the British that the Raj was untenable, and that its people could no longer be governed by a British Viceroy.
If that were the case, why have the alt-right infiltrated the White House?
But isn’t there issues on the other side of the fence? Doesn’t saying all cops are bastards stop everyone from equally joining and enforcing fair justice? It seems like a bit of a “no true scots man” kinda deal…All cops are bad, and as such they can’t be occasionally right. (Will freely admit that American Cops scare the crap out of me, and that there is truly a huge problem with racism and leathality in the force.)
(Just to make sure, you have a lot! of good points, and I’m not targeting you or anything to that effect.)
But I do agree that America needs some form of Oversight in its police force, especially in the form of better training, new non-leathal/ less leathal weapons and police body cams (Now if only they’d have them on at the start of their shifts instead of conveniently losing the footage.)…But How does looting, rioting, and saying that all police lives are worthless help? Its kinda like solving the homeless problem by having them burn down all the homes.
IDK it kinda feels like people in America are forming sides (Or maybe they’ve always been there), and acting increasingly violent (Gun crime, and all that) which is worrying given the shitty Pres they have, and the 300 million guns they privately have. And as such, I’d rather messages like All Lives Matter meant what they said on the box, so to speak, rather than this constant fighting there doing spurned on by groups like BLM, Or Anti-FA, or White Nationalist, KKK, ect
edit: I meant, in terms of the extreme Right, that there ideology is flawed, if you give them a chance to speak without letting them blame anything on you they will defeat themselves. Just look at every west bros church or KKK talk on air, there arguments are based on horrible cruelty towards others that nearly everyone can see. But this constant push towards punching Nazi’s has let them play the victim (And nearly for once rightfully so, given the terrorist Org that has been silencing freedom of speak.) On the Trump Issue, I don’t think he’s there man, more that he’s some idiot Corporate guy who’s using disenfranchised rural folk (Not that I’m defending them), people tired / or annoyed at Hillary (Funny how Trumps doing the same things she was going to do in terms of tax and what not), and of course racists (The KKK is supporting Trump, just like they have supported Hillary, Pewdiepie, Alex Jones the crazy frog guy, ect) to get better tax cuts for himself and his friends.
I yield to the Gandhi point, you have an impressive grasp of history…Really wish you made a Civi Game, it would be amazing!
That’s pretty much why I personally find that particular slogan reductive and counter-productive. However, it’s still the police who have the power of state-sanctioned violence, and they’re still supposed to be the ones held accountable by the simple virtue that they are paid for by the people which they sometimes victimise. When one side of a divide has all the power, it’s both easier and more fair for them to take the first steps towards reconciliation, and the burden is on the side with power to prove that they’re acting in good faith.
It serves the same purpose that more passive forms of civil disobedience does, but at a more intensive level. By creating a state of disorder which is intolerable to the powers-that-be, it forces them to confront the problem as a problem. Since crackdowns only feed the underlying anger behind those sorts of actions, this sort of thing forces the powerful to offer a legitimate means of redress or hope that public outrage will burn itself out eventually, which is not necessarily a sure bet.
I’m not so sure. I think the alt-right speaks to the feelings which a lot of people have which they aren’t willing to admit they have. There’s a deep sentiment of cultural and societal decay in North American society, one which is driven by the undercurrent of institutional racism. While you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who outright supports the KKK, or the Westboro Baptist Church, or Neo-Nazis for that matter, you might find a surprising number who’d support some of their arguments, especially in subtler more isolated forms.
As for the Nazis themselves, I see them as a demonstrated (through repeated historical examples) and very personal threat to my own life and safety, and I feel no obligation to sit down to debate with someone who wants to murder me, or my loved ones. Frankly, the fact that they aren’t more vigorously suppressed as terrorists is a failure of state power, and violent action against them is pretty much vigilantism against someone with a stated criminal intent.
He doesn’t have to be. When you’re getting advice from people like Sebastian Gorka, Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, it doesn’t matter.
True, that is the terrifying part of said groups, everyone has a reason, (No matter how abhorrent it is.) and once they go down the rabbit hole its a lot harder to get out. But that’s why debating them, letting them see the flaws in their ideas is so important…As you have said in the past, taking people to Holocaust memorials, seeing the conditions slaves went through, explaining thing like the Armenian genocide and all the horrors that come from dehumanising people is so important.
Its very easy to let ones passions guide you, when they say something like Trump is better than Hillary, or that America should look inward etc and the response is being called a Nazi anyway…No matter what. Its kinda like the Monster trope where someone finally gets tired of being treated badly (And Yes I do see the Irony in some of the people who have, or once had, spent their time treating those different from themselves like monsters being treated like monsters.) But You reap what you sow. Force answers force, war breeds war, and death only brings death. To break this vicious circle one must do more than just act without any thought or doubt.
( Yes it is unfair, but better that these issues get resolved before the Innawoods with a shit ton of guns idoits get it into their heads that everyone is out to get them no matter what.)
The above probs underscores why I think rioting is not the best tactic in America…Too any guns, its like a powder box waiting for a fuse.
Oh, and before I forget, thanks for talking about this with me. It’s nice to chat and learn more about history.
This is my perspective, somewhat influenced by some of things Cataphrak has said:
There aren’t a lot of people who would explicitly say that they’re proud supporters of racial inequality, but most hamburger eaters (see how I define myself in this post Guns of Infinity minus explicitly politically leftist ) are more than willing to believe the worst about people who criticize the system, to the point that they resent being told that “I’m not a Nazi” is asking for a medal for basic human decency.
It’s a lot easier to go from regarding liberal nags as horrible annoyances to regarding social injustice as “not really that big of a problem with the system” than it is to go from regarding liberal nags as horrible annoyances to regarding social injustice as a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the United States.
Personally, I’d prefer to get to people before they find themselves too far down to dig themselves out. It’s easy to see your political opinions as “something which doesn’t actually hurt anyone” when you’re not in personal contact with the people the institutions or ways of thinking you support actually hurt, and I think that’s a lot of the reason so many people have jumped on this bandwagon.
I’m lucky in the sense that I live in a place where people who want to do me harm because of what I look like/where I was born don’t have the institutional power to actually hurt me (though that is emphatically not the case with other groups and other places) so I have the luxury of being able to sit down and talk with them. However, in a situation where that is not the case, and people genuinely have to live in fear for their lives not just because of the torch-carrying Neo-Nazis dousing them with gasoline, but because of the hundred million people watching that and going “well, those guys with the torches kind of have a point…” that luxury no longer exists. That means living in a society where not only might violence be visited on you at any time, but where most of the people watching will be more likely to join in than try and stop it.
I think the only definitive way to make that happen is for the legitimate authorities to class incidents like Portland and Charlottesville as terrorist attacks, and act accordingly, though that’s probably not going to happen with the current US administration.
It’s hard, people are stubborn, annoying and silly (And in some cases the worse scum to ever walk the face of this planet). But at the end of the day people will surprise you. Ireland, one of the most Catholic Nations in Europe (After Poland) instituted Gay marriage. Australia (An Island that’s too full JK ) has an above 60 something percent approval rating for Gay marriage. (Which ties into the above as I saw someone I would never imagine voting anything but no, vote yes.) so it is possible, we just have to work at it, add some cultural glue, invent some games that everyone can join in on, oversight for cops, Better education (especially to those who would otherwise not have access to it.) and bordering horizons by displaying were we have gone wrong.
We just have to avoid giving people a reason not to talk, which wantonly calling people Nazi’s, or punching and pepper spraying people on the street will do. Its hard to confront one’s self…And acting like villains, punching and kicking will only give them an easy out.
I’d hate to imagine what level of societal collapse (And how close we may be to it) it would take for that scenario to become common place in every level of the social fabric in a western nation. What do you suppose would be the steps to avoid a death spiral like that ? Cause by that point I’d imagine there would be more than just protests, or would resistance be crushed by the fear of reprisal?
True, I don’t see Trump getting rid of one of his only loyal (Until they’re not) support bases. Even if that coupled with gun reform, police reform and a bit of public funding in the form of schools and the heath industry would go a long way to easing tensions. We can’t have people taking shots at each other, there’s no unity in that.
So is anyone here disgruntled about this net neutrality business? I know I am.
I disagree. At some point, assuming that they care whether this is approached patiently or violently is giving them too much credit for basing their behavior on what is actually happening.
I’m not saying that the first resort should be violence - but “all violence is equivalent” is better for those who don’t want the status quo disrupted, IMO.
A society can’t survive that level of insecurity if it applies to the people who sit at the top. However, this is the sort of thing which a large number of people (including a few personal friends) already live in by virtue of the fact that they belong to groups that are classed as “not important” or “not real [inserthomecountryhere]”.
It was the same case in Nazi Germany really. When the Nazis came to power, they actually increased freedoms in certain ways (gun control, specifically) for “aryans” even while tightening the thumbscrews on “undesirables” like Jews and the LGBT community. Since there was a general sense of apathy (if not real antagonism) towards the latter, it was as if nobody cared.
Is anyone not disgruntled about Net Neutrality right now?
Never underestimate the amount of uninformed idiots whose negative opinion on someone is based solely on the fact that it was introduced during the Obama administration, and thus needs to be eradicated and removed from the annals of history at any cost.
Or well-meaning older citizens who just mistakenly think the internet is killing us.
Or naive idealists who think corporations can actually be trusted to behave themselves without government interference.
Not necessarily. People are less likely to trust a movement if its members are destroying property and attacking people in the street, even if they are going against their own movement’s wishes.
The problem with this “punch a nazi” movement is that at the same time, people are also being labeled as nazis for simply being right wing or having a certain haircut. Level-headed, moderate people end up being labeled fascists just because they don’t agree with what the left is saying.
If person A calls Person C a nazi, and Person B is yelling for everyone to start attacking nazis, Person C is going to think they’re about to get punched, and if both Person A and Person B are hardcore leftists, why would they associate with a movement whose members are actively slandering and threatening them? They’re just going to distance themselves even further. They’re not going to start attending KKK meetings or getting swastika tattooes, but there’s certainly going to be an increased amount of bitterness towards the Left, and more sympathy towards the Right.
Also, these riots aren’t really doing anything - the police more or less just sit back and let them happen, people get injured (and in the worst cases, killed), and the day ends with thousands of dollars in property damage and some angry twitter battles.
Maybe it’s just me, but most of the people I’ve seen being accused of being Nazis are either quite obviously actual Nazis, or are flashing the sort of neo-nazi code phrases and words which make their political affiliation blatantly, eye-searingly obvious to anyone with remote familiarity with them.
At best, a lot of these people “aren’t Nazis” in the same way the America First Committee “weren’t Nazis”, in the sense that they parrot Nazi talking points in support of at least remaining apathetic to a Nazi agenda.
Except that’s all it was made for. If it wasn’t made in direct response to Black Lives Matter, then why was the slogan not made prior to Black Lives Matter? Why isn’t there a group similar to Black Lives Matter within All Lives Matter that attempts to do something?
All Lives Matter was made to argue against Black Lives Matter. That’s why it exists.
And this part is probably what I have the biggest problem with. Officers of the law volunteer to put their lives on the line in order to provide the public with safety. In response they are given some pretty major on the job benefits (Cataphrak has already mentioned them), as well as some off the job benefits both before and after retirement (free food at many restaurants, immunity to certain laws depending on the officer who catches them, the permanent respect of middle class communities, among other things).
Black people don’t volunteer to be black, they just got picked out of the genetic raffle. You can’t really compare someone black to a cop, especially in this.
I follow a few moderate, centrist people on YouTube who talk about these issues, and they’ve been accused of being alt-right on a number of occasions (among other things.)
Er… no. No it wasn’t.
It was made to point out the hypocrisy of a movement which claims to promote racial equality taking on a name which only focuses on one race. It is not saying that Black Lives don’t matter, it’s saying exactly what the name suggests - all lives matter. We shouldn’t be trying to end police brutality against just black people, we should be trying to end it against all races, because it does happen to all races - white people included.
And Blue Lives Matter was created in response to some of the more extreme Black Lives Matter members saying things like “All cops are racist” or “Kill all cops.” It’s meant to say: “Yes, some cops are horrible, but we shouldn’t demonize all police for the actions of a few.”
I don’t doubt that some actually racist people are piggybacking on these movements just so they can hate against black people, but neither of those movements as a whole are inherently against black people.
Somehow, that spectacularly failed to lead to the Sons of Liberty being seen as pariahs.
People tend to be more tolerant of violence and destruction in support of the status quo than in opposition to it.