The article he linked to was a little peculiar. As someone who's inclined to agree with the author about the First Amendment, the poorly thought out paragraph about racism - using a link to hate crime statistics to demonstrate the low numbers of "actual racists," but then making a remark like The statement “black lives matter” is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being, which raises some questions about why we all have so many not-decent people (just indecent, not actual racists?) in our social media feeds - distracted from the overall message.
So it seems rather ironic to write an article about 'political witchhunts' using someone who is claiming that Republicans are going to be systematically hunted down and murdered. I don't think the article was written in good faith at all.
[1] https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/127830983545328435...
The objection that most have to the phrase "black lives matter" is exactly the same objection that most have to "all lives matter". That is, essentially no-one objects to the sentiment expressed in the words in and of themselves, but they are suspicious of the political motivations of those who use the slogan.
There is a relative minority of people that engage in what is called "vice-signaling". That is, they claim to object to a commonly held moral sentiment that they feel has been co-opted for a partisan political cause. I think it's probably a counter-productive strategy, but I think those people can be reasoned with if you can separate the moral sentiment from the political platform.
Or is it the New York Times’ claim that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery?” https://mobile.twitter.com/maragay/status/116140196616729805....
Or is it that we need to “disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” as BLM’s website claims? https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
Or is it that “institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism” are all equivalent evils that must be “abolished,” as BLM’s DC chapter proclaims? https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-an...
Or is it—as the 1619 project claims and which is now being taught in schools—the supposed historical fact that capitalism is an outgrowth of plantation slavery? https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-conspiracy-theory
Or is it applied Marxism?
> No doubt, the organization itself was quite radical from the very beginning. Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as “trained Marxists” in a recently resurfaced video from 2015.
Look at how much the debate has transformed within the last month. It started out with universal condemnation of a murder committed by the police in Minnesota. Now, we are talking about tearing town statues of Abraham Lincoln: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2020/06/26/uw-... (“Students in the UW-Madison's Black student union are calling on university officials to remove the statue of the nation's 16th president.”) My high school, named after Thomas Jefferson, is thinking of renaming itself. We are debating whether the Constitution as a “pro-slavery document.”
I am pro-BLM. To me, it’s a matter of my faith, as well as my personal experience living in places like Baltimore and Philadelphia and realizing that Black people just aren’t getting a fair shake. I think people of every stripe can do something to help finish the job of reconstruction. Libertarians can pitch in to help end police abuse of minorities. Conservatives can help push forward school choice, which the majority of Black people support. Middle of the road people can agree that we need to undo the pro-confederacy monument building that happened during the KKK era.
But I also believe that our country rests on mostly admirable principles and history, and that Marxism is a recipe for suffering while capitalism is uplifting billions of people before our very eyes. I can hardly blame people who are skeptical when they are forced to chant a slogan that was coined by self-avowed Marxists. You can’t blame people for being cautious in their support of a movement that has under the same roof a majority of well-meaning people who simply want to eliminate police brutality and inequality, and a vocal minority of people who view those problems as an indictment of our entire country and it’s institutions. The far left, in characteristic fashion, has taken something most people could agree on, and pushed it further and further until normal people are forced to push back to keep society from crumbling beneath their feet. And that’s a tragedy for everyone, especially people who care about the core concept of fixing policing in America.
Haven't you seen the amount of people that are participating in these demonstrations? Of course you're gonna find self-described "Marxists" among them. Doesn't mean that the average protestor is some sort of Stalinist relic from the 1960ths. That's just absurd.
I think that's a false dichotomy; there's plenty of amazing Marxist literature, academic journals, etc. from well-meaning people. It's one thing to say that Marxists are misguided, but it's another thing to describe them in a situation as if they're against well-meaning moderates. It's possible for everyone to be well-meaning, and rather than assuming malice, perhaps it's a better idea to examine their point of view and arguments. I know I've taken the time to do that with right-libertarians and right-wingers online a few times.
Why do these intelligent people (tenured philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, even economists) think Marxism isn't a recipe for suffering? What do they have to say about capitalism, its advantages, and disadvantages? It's worth asking them and reading their modern point of views, which in the past fifteen years have changed a great deal already.
But several of the BLM founders are, by their own description, Marxists, and that is a very different thing from happening to "find self-described 'Marxists' among" the protesters. People with lots of different views can happen to find themselves on the same side of any issue. I do think it's different when you're talking about the founders of an organization that is the de facto figurehead of the movement.
I'm not sure that's true. Stipulating that it was "the greatest problem", how could it be the defining characteristic considering all the other historical instances of mass murder?
The overall message (the theme, if you prefer) of Sarah Downey's article that Carmack linked to was a defense of freedom of speech. I thought the stuff she wrote about racism was flawed enough - to be charitable, perhaps it was flawed because it wasn't the main topic of the piece and it wasn't getting sufficient space - that it took away from a potentially strong defense of freedom of speech.
> The far left, in characteristic fashion, has taken something most people could agree on, and pushed it further and further until normal people are forced to push back to keep society from crumbling beneath their feet.
That is a humorous image and it is an accurate summary of some people's thinking, but I don't know quite what to say about it without giving it more credence than I believe it deserves. If we side with the Marxists in opposing the murder of innocent people we will be living in a Communist state by Thursday is not a train of thought I would have a lot of sympathy for, even if Marxism were a force in American politics.
This is revisionist, though, isn't it? And in a way that specifically eliminates the meaning of the protests. The protests started before the officers were charged, I believe. And while it may not be reasonable to expect the arrests to happen instantly, it's also reasonable that people doubted it would happen at all.
Assuming you mean well and all, this specific wording could nevertheless be interpreted as a dog whistle. It triggers some peoples' political immune system.
I'm a regular reader of Jacobin, so I have some idea of what modern Marxists think. (Though I won't say I'm well read on the subject.) But that's besides the point--I have no objection to Marxists participating in solving police brutality and inequality. I'm addressing the practice of socially coercing people to say "black lives matter." What ideas are you actually asking people to endorse? I think many, many people are happy to endorse that idea insofar as it means "the police shouldn't murder black people because of the color of their skin," or "black people shouldn't get the short end of the economic stick."
But the eponymous organization behind the slogan happens to be led by Marxists and has a Marxist and anti-Western platform. I think people are quite reasonably hesitant that what they're actually being asked to endorse is the platform and ideology of the organization. And I think it's perverse to insist on such endorsement under the banner of anti-racism.
> You're pretty obviously implying that these protests are somehow linked to Marxism, otherwise that entire posts make little sense. I realize that conservatives always want to find some "leaders" to argue with rather than accept that it's a mass movement, not some top-down movement that has some sort of charter that most must directly or indirectly accept.
I am not arguing that we should discredit the narrow goals of the protestors because of the ideologies of the BLM founders. In fact, I said exactly the opposite:
> I am pro-BLM... I think people of every stripe can do something to help finish the job of reconstruction.
But that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about a very specific quote from John Carmack upthread: "the statement 'black lives matter' is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being." It is disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that one might not reasonably be concerned about the scope of that statement.
They don't. Our at least, not as much as other lives.
So? If there's a Yellow Vests non-profit started in France that has its own charter and leaders doesn't make the yellow vest somehow within that group in any practical sense.
What's your point trying to make this Marxist connection if there's indeed just some what you call leaders with Marxist connections? I mean you're saying that you're unsure if "black lives matter" includes Marxism?
Violence and extreme social distress, public humiliation sessions, public beatings were meted out rather liberally. A specifically pernicious aspect of Mao's strategam was turning generation against generation. These are the defining characteristics of Chinese Communist Party's Cultural Revolution.
Why is this problematic for you? They're not saying children don't need caregivers, or that families are bad. They're saying the American nuclear family has downsides compared to other models, notably the extended family model common in African and Asian cultures. What makes a nuclear family "nuclear" is that it's self-contained; it's practically by definition not intergenerational, the way many effective non-American families are. It's an especially resonant point given the amount of effort American culture put into making sure black nuclear families couldn't succeed.
I feel like criticism of the American nuclear family has been pretty much fair game for decades; it's not like BLM invented that concern.
There is a strain of socialist activism in BLM (you saw it with the ridiculous "property crime isn't violence" stuff). But those were voices in a larger crowd, and the movement doesn't seem to endorse them explicitly.
There are BLM signs all over Oak Park and, I assure you, very few of these people actually want to defund the Oak Park Police Department. I think BLM supporters have more clarity on the issues than you give them credit for: they're standing in solidarity with black people who have been targeted for generations by a policing culture we all know to be fucked up. They're not looking to seize the means of production.
And it's become a distraction from that. The US has a serious problem with police brutality and quality control. US cops killed 1,112 people in 2019. That's over 10x the rate for EU countries. The odds are worse if you're black, but more whites are killed by cops than blacks.
That's the problem. Statues don't kill. Flags don't kill. Cops kill.
These people make concrete conjectures, such as "the capital gains tax preference" (which is nearly universal in the developed world and widely supported by economists) "is racist." And they make concrete policy proposals, such as the following (remember the author has previously defined the capital gains preference to be racist):
> [The anti-racist amendment] would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
The public humiliation sessions are what I think most people that didn't study it think of, combined with the violence. They're what I vaguely think of; they're what you mention, and I'm confident they're what most people think of. The concept of such sessions is something that found its way into Western fiction (e.g. 80s SF) clearly inspired by the historical period. I don't recall a specific example, but this is something I always assumed was part of popular culture at some level.
While we're on that topic (popular impressions of Chinese history), a lot of people died during the "Great Leap Forward" too, but again, I don't think the average uninformed opinion of what defines it is "mass murder". When I think of that, I think of peasants trying to make steel and other social disruption.
Those two words seem to express what I think is a crucial falsehood, and it works for selective communication (dog whistling) if some people get cognitive dissonance for it and others don't. We have me as an example of the former and you as an example of the latter.
I'm not saying it's intentional, but it raises hackles for me.
I think we need police reform. As a military veteran I think there is no reason that an MRAP should be on American streets, but I also think the police have pretty large responsibilities and need more training too.
We also (and I’ll say that I am a 2nd Amendment proponent - within reason) have police who have to enter into situations where the other person may be armed, which adds to the stress level.
Frankly, if you look at the stats I’m not even sure we have a police brutality problem; instead we have more of a police abuse of power problem.
Solutions that come to mind:
More training
More pay
More strict hiring requirements
Abolition of police unions
Requiring police to carry insurance
No-hire once fired or terminated from a department (generally but there are specifics here to be discussed)
Sell off and no more spending on war equipment (MRAPs, assault rifles, smoke grenades, whatever)
Mandatory body cams, lack of use results in immediate suspension without pay while an investigation takes place, and if the camera is intentionally turned off immediate termination and no ability to be rehired anywhere in the country
That’s what I would start with
It's not _on_ American streets. I lived in the US for 20 years and I've never seen one. Likely some SWAT teams purchased them for pennies on the dollar, but I'd argue SWAT teams need them, to reduce casualties when getting close to violent action.
> assault rifles
To the best of my knowledge assault rifles are not in use by US police. AR15 is not an assault rifle.
I saw plenty in London though.
But that's nuance - people younger than, say, 35, won't understand any of it. Literally nobody is interested in the actual reform at the moment. If they were, we'd see some serious proposals by now.
Road to hell is paved with good intentions, clearly. Having grown up in the Soviet Union, I want absolutely no part of that shit here in the US. None whatsoever, "well meaning" or not
You probably already know this, but that number is a bit of a guess and almost certainly on the low side, since local police aren't required to report these numbers to the public or to any central authority.
The Cultural Revolution is a poor analog in other ways as well (I mean, upon examination the comparison to our current moment doesn't hold up at all and it's boring to discuss) but the large number of dead people seems like an especially important indicator that perhaps what's happening today is not as serious as all that, and that the author is engaging in some pretty extreme hyperbole. (which is their right of course, blah blah)
Check yourself, pot, that's an awfully broad brush to be calling a kettle incapable of nuance with.
It never occurred to me that that rayiner might have been using some kind of dog whistle in his reply to me. It would be rather out of character, and yours seems like a needlessly uncharitable interpretation of his comment.
Sure, but the notions of "re-education", "self-criticism" and the struggle-session as a form of public humiliation where someone is forced to admit their "crimes" before the "people" are a distinctive part of leftist social strife and oppression. And it seems quite relevant to point out that these social practices have led to mass murder in at least one instance that we know about, where they were promoted in an extensive "grassroots" campaign and thereby became widespread. We're not talking about willful and intentional physical purges of intellectuals ala Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, where your contention that mass murder is the defining element of it all would be far more on point.
I think you're quite severely overestimating both the number of people who are asking others to endorse Marxism when pressuring them to support their side in the current moment, and more to the point, the number of people who perceive themselves as being pressured to endorse Marxism in the current moment. There is some tangible benefit to both the far left and to the right for there to be a perception that that is what is going on, but I'm just not seeing it much IRL.
My extended social circle might not be representative of anything, but people are talking about cops murdering people, the behavior and misbehavior of protesters, whether vandalism during a protest is bad or somehow actually good for some reason (sigh), whether protesters deserve to suffer brutality at the hands of police (double sigh), whether racism is even a thing and whether whites are the REAL victims of racism (facepalm), whether events that are happening and are clearly documented on widely distributed video are really happening or whether that's just what "they" want us to think, and some other crazy stuff that I bet would sound familiar to you as well.
I think I'd actually feel a lot better about things if I were witnessing an argument about fringe political beliefs coming to the fore, rather than finding out how many people I know are overtly or covertly racist. That sounds a little negative but some demonstrably good things are happening as well, so... you take the bad with the good, I guess.
> I think I'd actually feel a lot better about things if I were witnessing an argument about fringe political beliefs coming to the fore, rather than finding out how many people I know are overtly or covertly racist.
That makes sense, but it's also sensible to ask whether hijacking a much-needed conversation about race and police brutality to push fringe, Marxist-inspired political views helps people and institutions become less racist. It's not even clear that 'Black Lives Matter', as an overtly organized and led social movement, is doing all that much to meaningfully improve Black lives.
Question: can you see how mixing this into BLM is a problem? I can take an unpaid day off to protest police brutality but this very quickly escalated into something completely different.
FTR, my stance on this:
- I'm not happy to support anything that wants to remove police. More training: yes. Tougher penalties for people abusing police power: yes. But removing one of most effective stabilizers in the society: no. For all its warts, the police is important.
- While I grew up in the same house as my grandparents until I was 6 or so and while my mothers parents and other relatives walked freely in and out of the house as long as they could walk I do not want to support a movement that had any opinion on how I or anyone organize our family life
- I'm kind of a socialist at heart but sadly could never vote that way as a every socialist party around here pulls in ugly dependencies, so for now and for the foreseeable future, the second best option: support anyone who wants to leave people alone.
- As this movement had started to try to tear down Churchill - not the bravest ot noblest man - but arguably one of those whose actions mattered most to reduce police brutality (Gestapo) and racism in Europe and no one is stopping them I've concluded that this movement is beyond repair. (Anyone should feel free to prove me wrong here by turning that movement around.)
Edit:
- some clarification
- also, based on the feedback so far: am I misunderstanding something (I had a misunderstanding a few days ago where someone meant nazi but used an euphemisms that I didn't catch in that context.)
Ans: Not generally.
The parent poster described himself in another comment as pro-BLM (his phrase), and I think he was making some slightly more subtle points.
[1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/17/candace-ow...
You belong to a culture and a nation which already enforces strong opinions on how its members organize our family lives. Therefore, it's a fair question to ask how effective those opinions are, and whether different opinions might be more effective.
Not the 'American' -> 'Western'. And that's just way of making the 'family' consistent with 'Colonialism' and 'White People' because it suits their bigotry. The nuclear family is pretty closely similar around the world, outside of mostly aboriginal communities. Obviously it's somewhat different in different places, with multi-generations under the same roof.
I view this as fundamentally antagonistic - it's 'making stuff up' to find supposedly powerful and inspiring words, 'defining the enemy' ever more as 'White People'.
It defines their struggle as not one to 'finish school and gain competence' but as merely against the forces of 'White people'.
Of course by most objective measures, nuclear families are good for society.
This is the inherent problem when we mix radicalism with 'good intentions' - they end up mestastisizing the 'grain of truth' (ie racism exists) into everything (ie everything is racist).
And Americans shoot at each other and Cops at a rate >10x than Europe.
The misrepresentation in your comment, is that it doesn't account for the differing conditions the cops face.
'Cops kill' -> 'People who shoot at cops get killed'.
This isn't to say police violence is not a problem, but it's misrepresented by all of this narrative.
If Americans were not carrying guns everywhere, this would be an entirely different conversation.
So it is not true that everyone agreed from the beginning as it took a week to get to the point where everyone went "oh shit this is serious".
The criticism is against all families, extended or not. The idea from Marxism is that tribalism starts in the family unit. The aim is to get the village to raise the child, not just allow the grandmother to lend a hand.
The western family includes the European models, it doesn't only contain the Protestant isolated family structure.
Your question should therefore be re written as "why does advocating for having a family to be made up of people not related to the child be seen as problematic"?
Can you explain?
(My understanding is that my nation cares less about how people organize their lives than it has done for at least 900 years.
People live together 3 generations, other live as single, others as unmarried couples, married couples and everything in between.)
If you reject the thought that the United States has slavery built deeply into its ideology, then you should award that same consideration to BLM and admit that the fundamentals of its ideology are not Marxism etc., but that Black people are fundamentally not given a fair shake by society, as you say.
This is leaving aside the point other posters have made, which is that Black Lives Matter as a slogan and idea exists outside this specific foundation. I don't think you can reasonably expect someone asserting "Black Lives Matter" to have made a complete study of this specific foundation and be in agreement with all its aims.
At very least English families have more in common with German families than German families do with Italian or Spanish families.
But it's moot: because family structure across civility is not fundamentally different with respect to the antagonising view of BLM.
Aside from some degree of intergenerational cohabitation, it's not that different in advanced countries.
The BLM statement with respect to family is unfounded bigotry, specifically created to concretise and define the image of their enemy.
It's very similar to Trump specifically trying to use the term 'Wuhan Virus' so as to invoke 'blame' for the virus on China. There is a 'kernel of truth' to complicity in China - in that China did some very bad things during the early phase of the pandemic, but that doesn't justify the use of this kind of language to blame them for the entirety of the problem. The language he uses here is to provoke - and to shift blame for the inadequacies of his own system, using crude language mapped onto an external group. When in doubt, use xenophobia.
BLM attacking the 'Western Family Unit' is shifting the narrative and denying any responsibility for a very foundational problem within the community - and that is >50% of Black children have little no relationship with at least one of their parents, and that rates are about double for Black families as they are for other groups [1]. Now - obviously it's a very complicated problem (i.e. incarceration etc.), but it's a lot easier to dismiss if you don't have to see it as a problem, rather, merely an oppressive measure by your villainous opponents.
The argument "The Black community has challenges at least partly due to the deep fragmentation of the family unit" can simply be dismissed and ignored with the radical, and ironically xenophobic statement: "The family unit is colonialist and racist".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_struct...
Also - that the vast majority of gun owners are 'very responsible' doesn't change the fact that as cops pull people over, there is a reasonable likelihood people will have weapons, which ratchets up the likelihood that someone, even in a 'good area' will do something bad. The likelihood is small, but enough to make a difference.
When I've been pulled over in the US, often the officer approaches and doesn't quite come to the side of the window, remains slightly out of sight, they might have one hand on the flashlight and seem to be quite concerned about visually inspecting inside the car as a precaution. In Canada, I don't really see this. I believe this is a function of the likelihood of weapons.
Also, America differs in citizens likelihood of doing something pretty outrageous when confronted with police. I'm not sure why this is, I guess a cultural attribute - but again, combine this with weapons, and it makes policing materially more dangerous.
Here's the data on high-speed chases in the US [1] and a 'high point' for high speed chases in the UK as a comparison. [2]
Here are the number of US police killed in the line of duty [3], it's quite a lot, and the number of UK police killed [4] (it amounts to about 1 per year).
A lot of guns, a propensity for more violent acts, I think really does shift the equilibrium.
Which doesn't justify excess violence by cops of course, but it's a different context.
[1] https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5906
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/05/police-pursuit-d...
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36748136
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine
You may be confusing "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" which are different categories. The AR15 does usually qualify as an "assault weapon". The definition of assault weapon is looser, and includes a number of features (such as barrel shrouds and flash suppressors") the sole purpose of which is to make the gun safer to use, and have nothing to do with making them actually more dangerous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
If you have different sources, feel free so share.
Indeed, the choice was intentional.
> but the general widespread availability of weapons makes them very accessible, both legally and illegally, in specific locations wherein people are going to use them for 'bad things'.
While I don't think the problems of those specific locations should be ignored, their problems are also not a good justification to abridge the rights of people who live outside of those places.
> Also - that the vast majority of gun owners are 'very responsible' doesn't change the fact that as cops pull people over, there is a reasonable likelihood people will have weapons, which ratchets up the likelihood that someone, even in a 'good area' will do something bad. The likelihood is small, but enough to make a difference.
The impact of civilian gun ownership on police interactions is not something I've given much thought, and is worth exploring.
However, I will note that there are many sheriffs across the U.S. which actually encourage their county residents to own guns. There are many, many legitimate defensive guns uses each year.
What is the other extended familiy model? family clans? What would be the practical difference? Are the no disadvantages?
Exactly these political issues, which I have no strong opinion on, are randomly added to issues of police violence that makes the whole movement look very dishonest.
Where in the western world are people that tell you how to structure your family?
The movement isn't dishonest. Its critics are simply ignorant. That's not surprising; they've been kept in ignorance deliberately.
Yes, the suburban happy family living the American dream might be a touch too idealistic, harsh building regulation might drive prices which disadvantages poor demographics and there were maybe people that used it for racist purposes. Doesn't mean everyone did. And high density housing is probably a lot more stressful even without a family apart from the most expensive options available.
Also, barrel length is one of the most common theme in firearms bans. Usually those consist of legal limits on the minimum barrel length in an effort to prevent people from concealing it, I guess.
There is a long case history involving these ordinances, including extensive documentary evidence that occupancy caps and definitions of "immediate family" were designed specifically to exclude blacks (in the first half of the 20th century) and latinos as well (in the second), taking advantage of both the fact that black and latino households are far more likely to include grandparents, aunts, and uncles, and also the (obvious, in retrospect) fact that municipalities simply don't enforce these regulations against white households --- again, a fact documented in the case history.
At any rate, the dispute upthread suggested that there was no racial justice aspect to the "Western-prescribed nuclear family", and whether you agree with the courts or not, there clearly is such an aspect; the allegation that BLM is exceeding its charter by railing against "nuclear families" is easily refuted, and we should have all known better than to raise this objection in the first place.