George Floyd Death and the Wider Consequences

[yorksrob]

My only complaint about "Come Fly With Me" was that there wasn't another series.

 

[Tetchytyke]

My only complaint about "Come Fly With Me" was that there wasn't another series.

Definitely. It was very very funny, and generally very well observed too.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I hope the violence in London today gets the same coverage as the protests from last week and the same attention from the government. Even seen a picture of one of the idiots relieving himself against a statue - I thought they claimed they were protecting statues, not washing them with urine!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I hope the violence in London today gets the same coverage as the protests from last week and the same attention from the government. Even seen a picture of one of the idiots relieving himself against a statue - I thought they claimed they were protecting statues, not washing them with urine!

Absolutely appalling violence. God knows how these thugs can imagine they are being remotely patriotic.

But on first impressions, I don't think you need to worry about lack of coverage. - just look what even the Daily Mail - a pretty right wing paper - are leading with (currently the top story on their home page):

Violence explodes at Nelson's Column as riot police clash with far-right mob and BLM activists hurl smoke bombs - as Priti Patel slams 'unacceptable thuggery' while protests take off in 14 UK towns

By the way, I don't usually think that highly of Priti Patel (or most Conservatives), but I have to say she does actually seem to be taking the trouble to condemn the violence on all sides in a fairly even-handed way (which really, just about everyone should be doing, but a good many politicians and political groups don't seem to be).

 

[Iskra]

I hope the violence in London today gets the same coverage as the protests from last week and the same attention from the government. Even seen a picture of one of the idiots relieving himself against a statue - I thought they claimed they were protecting statues, not washing them with urine!

Don't worry, the BBC are loving it. The BBC photo-cropping department have obviously decided to have this weekend off.

The reporting and policing make an interesting contrast to that of last week.

 

[alex397]

Having a look at the videos from today, makes me realise that we need more immigrants into the UK - our gene pool needs some serious help!
It’s clear they are just there because they want a fight - urinating by statues, Nazi salutes and attacking police. Yeah, true patriots!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

And Arab involvement in the slave trade ?

Once we no longer need their dinosaur juice, we'll finally be able to condemn the conduct of the elites from that part of the world...

 

[Geezertronic]

It’s clear they are just there because they want a fight - urinating by statues, Nazi salutes and attacking police. Yeah, true patriots!

It just proves that both sides have issues given the reason they were there in the first place. I have empathy for both sides even if both sides have questionable motives

 

[Tetchytyke]

It’s clear they are just there because they want a fight - urinating by statues, Nazi salutes and attacking police. Yeah, true patriots!

Piddling all over a plaque commemorating a police officer killed by a terrorist was a nice touch, I thought. Right up there with goosestepping and Heil Hitlering their way past the Cenotaph to "protect Churchill". Clearly history isn't their strong point.

Football hooligans just wanting a fight? Well I never.

 

[RJ]

Was interested to hear of Dale Semper's story.

Exclusive: Black bank manager to sue Metropolitan Police for racial discrimination after 26-month nightmare

The Metropolitan Police have told us they will fully investigate allegations made by Dale Semper, a black bank manager, who says he was wrongfully targeted by officers

www.channel4.com

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Once we no longer need their dinosaur juice, we'll finally be able to condemn the conduct of the elites from that part of the world...

Indeed - one of the reasons (not the main one btw) for weaning ourselves of oil and going carbon free -or net zero. Nice and steady program of rail electrification and electric cars.

 

[Robin Edwards]

It just proves that both sides have issues given the reason they were there in the first place. I have empathy for both sides even if both sides have questionable motives

I respect your view but personally I'm struggling to show empathy for someone who just wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight?
The BLM folk are wanting a more fair society whilst the so-called Patriots seem wholly confused beyond the fight they are out to having? There is bad behaviour on both sides but the desire for fighting seems more aligned to those wanting to defend racism imho.

 

[Geezertronic]

I respect your view but personally I'm struggling to show empathy for someone who just wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight?
The BLM folk are wanting a more fair society whilst the so-called Patriots seem wholly confused beyond the fight they are out to having? There is bad behaviour on both sides but the desire for fighting seems more aligned to those wanting to defend racism imho.

Your issue is that you seem to be assuming that all BLM people are peaceful protesters and that all of the other side are racists who "wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight" which is far from the case. One could suggest that given what we have seen, the peaceful protests of BLM have been hijacked by people who "wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight" or at the very least the looting, rioting, and destruction aspects, and if those aspects were not present then a response would not be provoked. Like you say, There is bad behaviour on both sides but the desire for wanton violence and destruction appears to be started by the rogue aspects of those who claim to support BLM - CHAZ proves that

 

[Robin Edwards]

Your issue is that you seem to be assuming that all BLM people are peaceful protesters and that all of the other side are racists who "wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight" which is far from the case. One could suggest that given what we have seen, the peaceful protests of BLM have been hijacked by people who "wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight" or at the very least the looting, rioting, and destruction aspects, and if those aspects were not present then a response would not be provoked. Like you say, There is bad behaviour on both sides but the desire for wanton violence and destruction appears to be started by the rogue aspects of those who claim to support BLM - CHAZ proves that

I think your assumption of me may be misjudged Geezertronic. There are always 'undesirables' in any mass gathering as you correctly point out but showing each side as like-for-like is unhelpful imho. I'm trying to step back to the bigger picture not letting said undesirables cloud my vision.
One side wants more fairness for those who don't have white skin whilst the other side seem to want to play victim with our history and maintain their position of supremacy being fearful of change? The point I was making was simply that for me, only one side deserves empathy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One side wants more fairness for those who don't have white skin whilst the other side seem to want to play victim with our history and maintain their position of supremacy being fearful of change? The point I was making was simply that for me, only one side deserves empathy.

With respect, I think you are massively misrepresenting the majority of those who feel uneasy about the BLM movement there.

Let's agree for now that, in this discussion, we are ignoring the people on both sides who are intent on violence and hooliganism (And recognising that most, but not all, of that violence has been on the far right), and focus on the people who are demonstrating peacefully or who are expressing their views on either side:

• On one side, people believe they want more fairness for those who don't have white skin.
• On the other side, people generally agree that there has been much discrimination and prejudice in the past and that some discrimination still exists and needs to be tackled. But there's also a belief that BLM are exaggerating the extent of that discrimination today, are showing intolerance towards those who disagree with them (for example by too readily accusing people of racism), and that the practical impact of some of BLM's agenda would include needlessly destroying parts of our historical heritage, creating divisions in society, and emphasising a culture of victimhood - none of which would actually help ethnic minorities.

Personally, I would say that both sides have valid points, and both sides deserve empathy.

Somewhat ironically, to my mind, the way you misrepresent one side as wanting to 'maintain their position of supremacy being fearful of change' instead of seeking to understand that side's point of view exactly illustrates the intolerance that many fear the BLM movement is generating.

 

[Robin Edwards]

With respect, I think you are massively misrepresenting the majority of those who feel uneasy about the BLM movement there.

Let's agree for now that, in this discussion, we are ignoring the people on both sides who are intent on violence and hooliganism (And recognising that most, but not all, of that violence has been on the far right), and focus on the people who are demonstrating peacefully or who are expressing their views on either side:

• On one side, people believe they want more fairness for those who don't have white skin.
• On the other side, people generally agree that there has been much discrimination and prejudice in the past and that some discrimination still exists and needs to be tackled. But there's also a belief that BLM are exaggerating the extent of that discrimination today, are showing intolerance towards those who disagree with them (for example by too readily accusing people of racism), and that the practical impact of some of BLM's agenda would include needlessly destroying parts of our historical heritage, creating divisions in society, and emphasising a culture of victimhood - none of which would actually help ethnic minorities.

Personally, I would say that both sides have valid points, and both sides deserve empathy.

Somewhat ironically, to my mind, the way you misrepresent one side as wanting to 'maintain their position of supremacy being fearful of change' instead of seeking to understand that side's point of view exactly illustrates the intolerance that many fear the BLM movement is generating.

Thanks for your thoughts on my response to Geezertronic. These are very valid and I do appreciate the fear of the unknown wrt BLM. It is quite natural to fear something new and little understood. For me I see lots of latent and underhand Racism that many don't acknowledge as such. For anyone who is 'white' and fearing what threat the 'black' person may pose, should acknowledge that they as Black & ethnic people have historically and still now have much more to fear than they do of them. I also acknowledge that playing unfairly on the notion of race, colour and culture can undermine the underlying cause, absolutely.

In terms of BLM agenda, I'm still trying to work out what that might be beyond just wanting people to be more respectful and less prejudiced and biased.

Let me share an experience from only Monday this week. Whilst line side distancing a conversation ensued with a 'pleasant' man in late 40's early 50s I'd say. Railways started as our common interest and then led to conversation on Covid-19. He introduced some speculation on wanting to get to the bottom of what the Chinese have been up to and then interjected that thank goodness we're not needing to place any blame on 'Black countries'! At this juncture I politely ended the conversation.

 

[Geezertronic]

It also has to be said that there is a distinct difference between the slogan and the organisation for BLM and that is what concerns a lot of people. The message BLM is a given however the organisation around it and the rioting, looting, destruction of property, causing harm etc... is not reflective of the message that is trying to be presented. Also the virtue signalling is a joke as was the minutes silence in parliament

 

[najaB]

In terms of BLM agenda, I'm still trying to work out what that might be beyond just wanting people to be more respectful and less prejudiced and biased.

Remember that BLM started in the US as a result of several high-profile incidents making clear the massive difference in the way that black and Latino people are treated by the police as compared to white.

It's morphed into a wider movement to basically, as you said, try and eliminate racism generally such that people are treated basically the same regardless of race.

Part of that is recognition and acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past - hence the focus on monuments and what they say about us as a society.

 

[mmh]

Oriel College Oxford has announced it is to remove its statue of Cecil Rhodes.

 

[Butts]

Oriel College Oxford has announced it is to remove its statue of Cecil Rhodes.

But no doubt not the scholarships he endowed, of which Black students have been recipients....ludicrous hypocrisy.

 

[najaB]

But no doubt not the scholarships he endowed, of which Black students have been recipients....ludicrous hypocrisy.

There's no hypocrisy. There are other people who have founded scholarships who don't have statues.

What is dangerously close to hypocrisy is to imply that somehow the fact that some recipients of the scholarships have been black somehow makes up for the fact that he was a massive racist and misogynist).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's morphed into a wider movement to basically, as you said, try and eliminate racism generally such that people are treated basically the same regardless of race.

Has it morphed into a movement to make sure that people are treated the same regardless of race?

Look at this Meme. I've seen variants of this shared by BLM supporters more times than I can count.



It's pretty much directly telling you that if you treat all people the same regardless of race, then that makes you a racist - which is of course utter nonsense. I cannot fathom any reasonable way to interpret it that is consistent with wanting to make sure that people are treated the same regardless of race. Yet this is the kind of thing that BLM supporters are pushing out.

 

[najaB]

It's pretty much directly telling you that if you treat all people the same regardless of race, then that makes you a racist - which is of course utter nonsense.

Nope. That statement "I don't see colour" comes from a good place but is - if it was strictly applied - almost as bad as being racist since it dismisses that fact that there are differences between races. Most black BLM protesters are proud of the history and contribution that black people have made to modern society and want to be justly recognised as both black and equal to any other race or ethnicity.

As a parallel "I don't see Northerner or Southerner, we're all English" might not go down well with some Yorkshiremen or Devonians.

What the person who says "I don't see colour" really means most of the time is actually something more like "I look past colour and see the person".

That's not to say that there aren't some nutters in with the BLM movement, but what most people want is equality of opportunity and equal protection under (and by) the law.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Thanks for your thoughts on my response to Geezertronic. These are very valid and I do appreciate the fear of the unknown wrt BLM. It is quite natural to fear something new and little understood.

I fear this is once again a misunderstanding. Obviously I can't speak for everyone opposed to BLM, but my own perspective is that it is nothing to do with fear of the unknown. It's a plain and simple not agreeing with a fair bit of what BLM are saying - and from discussions I've had, I would say that is true of many of those concerned about BLM whom I've interacted with. There's really no need to start trying to look for hidden motives (such as fear) in the arguments against BLM. Just take those arguments at face value and - if you disagree - address the arguments that I and others are putting.

 

[Butts]

There's no hypocrisy. There are other people who have founded scholarships who don't have statues.

What is dangerously close to hypocrisy is to imply that somehow the fact that some recipients of the scholarships have been black somehow makes up for the fact that he was a massive racist and misogynist).

But surely he was "A Man of His Time" and not particularly worse than his contemporaries with regards to his racist behaviour. Not sure where misogyny comes into it.

Good Lord the man started with nothing and ended up having a Country named after him.

If you are looking for the most racist and barbarous Rhodesian Leader of all time one Robert Mugabe springs to mind, compared to him Rhodes was a Saint.

 

[alex397]

But surely he was "A Man of His Time" and not particularly worse than his contemporaries with regards to his racist behaviour. Not sure where misogyny comes into it.

Good Lord the man started with nothing and ended up having a Country named after him.

If you are looking for the most racist and barbarous Rhodesian Leader of all time one Robert Mugabe springs to mind, compared to him Rhodes was a Saint.

Sure, he probably was a man of his time. Although I don't think everyone was racist even then, but it appears it was a majority viewpoint that white people were believed superior. Perhaps if he was around now, he wouldn't hold those views. But keeping a statue up of him does look like we a still celebrating him and his imperialistic views - I think its time the statue was put in a museum where it can be learnt about objectively (hopefully this statue will be kept somewhere rather than hidden away or destroyed).

I'm not sure many would disagree with you about how vile and tyrannical Mugabe was. If we had any statues of him, i'm sure people would want to remove those!

 

[Butts]

Sure, he probably was a man of his time. Although I don't think everyone was racist even then, but it appears it was a majority viewpoint that white people were believed superior. Perhaps if he was around now, he wouldn't hold those views. But keeping a statue up of him does look like we a still celebrating him and his imperialistic views - I think its time the statue was put in a museum where it can be learnt about objectively (hopefully this statue will be kept somewhere rather than hidden away or destroyed).

I'm not sure many would disagree with you about how vile and tyrannical Mugabe was. If we had any statues of him, i'm sure people would want to remove those!

If Oriel College Oxford feels that badly about it's association with Cecil Rhodes perhaps they should return the money he endowed to his descendants ?

 

[alex397]

If Oriel College Oxford feels that badly about it's association with Cecil Rhodes perhaps they should return the money he endowed to his descendants ?

Yes, maybe they should.

 

[najaB]

Not sure where misogyny comes into it.

He specifically excluded women from receiving Rhodes scholarships over the protestations of many. Hence the existence of the Marshall scholarships.

Good Lord the man started with nothing and ended up having a Country named after him.

What matters more is not what you achieved, but the manner by which they were accomplished. There's a reason that there aren't many statues of Rhodes in Zimbabwe...

 

[mmh]

Nope. That statement "I don't see colour" comes from a good place but is - if it was strictly applied - almost as bad as being racist since it dismisses that fact that there are differences between races. Most black BLM protesters are proud of the history and contribution that black people have made to modern society and want to be justly recognised as both black and equal to any other race or ethnicity.

As a parallel "I don't see Northerner or Southerner, we're all English" might not go down well with some Yorkshiremen or Devonians.

What the person who says "I don't see colour" really means most of the time is actually something more like "I look past colour and see the person".

That's not to say that there aren't some nutters in with the BLM movement, but what most people want is equality of opportunity and equal protection under (and by) the law.

That's a rather rose tinted view of BLM. It is not just an equal rights campaign, it is an extremist anti-capitalist movement. No doubt many who think they support it are unaware of this or unwilling to accept it, which is how you end up with unedifying sights like the Premier League's endorsement (which goes against their position of not endorsing political movements, for it very much is one.)

From blacklivesmatter.com:

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

This is textbook language of the loonie left. I very much doubt that the bulk of "supporters" would agree with the anti-family stance, which airbrushes fathering out of child raising.

As for protection from law, BLM are quite open about wanting an end to policing. What exactly do people think a "Defund the police" campaign is about?