Black Lives Matter - Who are they?
Discussion
mrporsche said:
"Our School was founded by Sir John Cass over 300 years ago and to this day we remain proudly supported by our trustees, Sir John Cass's Foundation. We are the only maintained school in the City of London and enjoy many benefits from this unique relationship."
Ok. As their website states that they are maintained by the Local Authority can you tell me how much funding the SJCF gives them?I see from reading the BLM website that they seem to have dropped a few of the more egregious affirmations from their manifesto. I'm not sure what this proves however, maybe that they realised that they are going to have to make their politics a bit more palatable in order to achieve their goals?
From a person standpoint, my main issue with BLM and by extension, critical race theorists and post-modernist, neo-Marxists in general is that I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for their views/goals. (Not that convincing arguments don't exist)
I'm not a vegan myself but I've heard many very convincing arguments for why one would want to become a vegan.
I'm very interested to hear supporting arguments for them though, particularly in the context of the UK where I believe their presence is far, far less justified than, say, the US.
From a person standpoint, my main issue with BLM and by extension, critical race theorists and post-modernist, neo-Marxists in general is that I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for their views/goals. (Not that convincing arguments don't exist)
I'm not a vegan myself but I've heard many very convincing arguments for why one would want to become a vegan.
I'm very interested to hear supporting arguments for them though, particularly in the context of the UK where I believe their presence is far, far less justified than, say, the US.
Countdown said:
mrporsche said:
"Our School was founded by Sir John Cass over 300 years ago and to this day we remain proudly supported by our trustees, Sir John Cass's Foundation. We are the only maintained school in the City of London and enjoy many benefits from this unique relationship."
Ok. As their website states that they are maintained by the Local Authority can you tell me how much funding the SJCF gives them?They are happy to take money from them.
"The Foundation is the school's Trustee. It owns the freehold of the site and provides on going support to the school."
Rob_R said:
I see from reading the BLM website that they seem to have dropped a few of the more egregious affirmations from their manifesto. I'm not sure what this proves however, maybe that they realised that they are going to have to make their politics a bit more palatable in order to achieve their goals?
From a person standpoint, my main issue with BLM and by extension, critical race theorists and post-modernist, neo-Marxists in general is that I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for their views/goals. (Not that convincing arguments don't exist)
I'm not a vegan myself but I've heard many very convincing arguments for why one would want to become a vegan.
I'm very interested to hear supporting arguments for them though, particularly in the context of the UK where I believe their presence is far, far less justified than, say, the US.
Perfectly rational stand point you describe.From a person standpoint, my main issue with BLM and by extension, critical race theorists and post-modernist, neo-Marxists in general is that I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for their views/goals. (Not that convincing arguments don't exist)
I'm not a vegan myself but I've heard many very convincing arguments for why one would want to become a vegan.
I'm very interested to hear supporting arguments for them though, particularly in the context of the UK where I believe their presence is far, far less justified than, say, the US.
I've also yet to hear any narratives from the likes of BLM, Antifa, Occupy movement, Extinction Rebellion types that don't rely on the very flawed issue of "group identity politics".
Whenever there is a drive by any political faction to get people to identify as a group of certain selected criteria which can then be deemed "oppressed" by another grouping of people, then that type of politics is nothing more than divisive and aimed to get people at each other's throats.
When the grouping is based on 'race' then the desire to pit one race against another is nothing less than outright racism. (It is more or less the definition of it).
Group identity politics is strong in the far-left but this is not to say it doesn't occur in the far-right. The main point being that any political narratives that rely on group identity politics is an extreme position that should get rational people condemning them.
Always better to view the political sliding scale as a horse-shoe shape rather than linear.
GroundZero said:
Perfectly rational stand point you describe.
I've also yet to hear any narratives from the likes of BLM, Antifa, Occupy movement, Extinction Rebellion types that don't rely on the very flawed issue of "group identity politics".
Whenever there is a drive by any political faction to get people to identify as a group of certain selected criteria which can then be deemed "oppressed" by another grouping of people, then that type of politics is nothing more than divisive and aimed to get people at each other's throats.
When the grouping is based on 'race' then the desire to pit one race against another is nothing less than outright racism. (It is more or less the definition of it).
Group identity politics is strong in the far-left but this is not to say it doesn't occur in the far-right. The main point being that any political narratives that rely on group identity politics is an extreme position that should get rational people condemning them.
Always better to view the political sliding scale as a horse-shoe shape rather than linear.
I agree in that pigeon-holing individuals based on where they arbitrarily sit on the oppression-privilege scale is essentially quite a dehumanising paradigm. It seems to assert that we are merely a product of our environments and, even more narrowly, to which groups were are deemed to be a part are what define us as people. And even more scarily, used to determine how society should treat us.I've also yet to hear any narratives from the likes of BLM, Antifa, Occupy movement, Extinction Rebellion types that don't rely on the very flawed issue of "group identity politics".
Whenever there is a drive by any political faction to get people to identify as a group of certain selected criteria which can then be deemed "oppressed" by another grouping of people, then that type of politics is nothing more than divisive and aimed to get people at each other's throats.
When the grouping is based on 'race' then the desire to pit one race against another is nothing less than outright racism. (It is more or less the definition of it).
Group identity politics is strong in the far-left but this is not to say it doesn't occur in the far-right. The main point being that any political narratives that rely on group identity politics is an extreme position that should get rational people condemning them.
Always better to view the political sliding scale as a horse-shoe shape rather than linear.
I mean, I don't have a full overview of all of the empirical evidence but I would rather hypothesise that the human condition is far more complex than that. Individuality plays a strong factor in who you are as well, perhaps even more so.
I also completely agree with you in that identity politics seems more divisive than inclusive. I would say that if we really analyse the human condition, there is far more that we all have in common than what we don't. I'm also unclear as to the end-goal of postmodernist identity politics. From what I can see, there doesn't really seem to be one or if there is one it seems to be a hybrid of Orwellian totalitarianism and the hysterical rhetoric that fuelled the Salem witch trials. If you were to write a University thesis describing some of the language of the identitarians, you'd probably get done for plagiarising 1984.
I think I just about understand the horseshoe analogy. That the far left and far right are actually closer together than what appears and the centre is somewhere away from both, rather than directly between?
Fittster said:
Leftie bankers remove statues:
Statues of two politicians with links to the transatlantic slave trade are to be removed from central London.
The City of London Corporation announced it would remove statues of William Beckford and Sir John Cass from the Guildhall, in Moorgate.
The decision was made by a taskforce set up by the corporation following nationwide Black Lives Matter protests.
A spokeswoman called the move "an important milestone" in moving towards an "inclusive and diverse City".
Isn't this a case of using currently "trendy" sounding language when it isn't actually applicable? Removing things, especially representations of real people, is not inclusive. It is the very opposite of inclusive, surely? It may well be the right thing to do (and that is debatable) but you can't say that you are moving towards a more inclusive future on the back of excluding something. Statues of two politicians with links to the transatlantic slave trade are to be removed from central London.
The City of London Corporation announced it would remove statues of William Beckford and Sir John Cass from the Guildhall, in Moorgate.
The decision was made by a taskforce set up by the corporation following nationwide Black Lives Matter protests.
A spokeswoman called the move "an important milestone" in moving towards an "inclusive and diverse City".
AJL308 said:
Isn't this a case of using currently "trendy" sounding language when it isn't actually applicable? Removing things, especially representations of real people, is not inclusive. It is the very opposite of inclusive, surely? It may well be the right thing to do (and that is debatable) but you can't say that you are moving towards a more inclusive future on the back of excluding something.
If the object being excluded by its very presence causes more exclusion than its mere exclusion would, then excluding the excludey object is the very definition of anti excludey inclusivity.Rob_R said:
GroundZero said:
Perfectly rational stand point you describe.
I've also yet to hear any narratives from the likes of BLM, Antifa, Occupy movement, Extinction Rebellion types that don't rely on the very flawed issue of "group identity politics".
Whenever there is a drive by any political faction to get people to identify as a group of certain selected criteria which can then be deemed "oppressed" by another grouping of people, then that type of politics is nothing more than divisive and aimed to get people at each other's throats.
When the grouping is based on 'race' then the desire to pit one race against another is nothing less than outright racism. (It is more or less the definition of it).
Group identity politics is strong in the far-left but this is not to say it doesn't occur in the far-right. The main point being that any political narratives that rely on group identity politics is an extreme position that should get rational people condemning them.
Always better to view the political sliding scale as a horse-shoe shape rather than linear.
I agree in that pigeon-holing individuals based on where they arbitrarily sit on the oppression-privilege scale is essentially quite a dehumanising paradigm. It seems to assert that we are merely a product of our environments and, even more narrowly, to which groups were are deemed to be a part are what define us as people. And even more scarily, used to determine how society should treat us.I've also yet to hear any narratives from the likes of BLM, Antifa, Occupy movement, Extinction Rebellion types that don't rely on the very flawed issue of "group identity politics".
Whenever there is a drive by any political faction to get people to identify as a group of certain selected criteria which can then be deemed "oppressed" by another grouping of people, then that type of politics is nothing more than divisive and aimed to get people at each other's throats.
When the grouping is based on 'race' then the desire to pit one race against another is nothing less than outright racism. (It is more or less the definition of it).
Group identity politics is strong in the far-left but this is not to say it doesn't occur in the far-right. The main point being that any political narratives that rely on group identity politics is an extreme position that should get rational people condemning them.
Always better to view the political sliding scale as a horse-shoe shape rather than linear.
I mean, I don't have a full overview of all of the empirical evidence but I would rather hypothesise that the human condition is far more complex than that. Individuality plays a strong factor in who you are as well, perhaps even more so.
I also completely agree with you in that identity politics seems more divisive than inclusive. I would say that if we really analyse the human condition, there is far more that we all have in common than what we don't. I'm also unclear as to the end-goal of postmodernist identity politics. From what I can see, there doesn't really seem to be one or if there is one it seems to be a hybrid of Orwellian totalitarianism and the hysterical rhetoric that fuelled the Salem witch trials. If you were to write a University thesis describing some of the language of the identitarians, you'd probably get done for plagiarising 1984.
I think I just about understand the horseshoe analogy. That the far left and far right are actually closer together than what appears and the centre is somewhere away from both, rather than directly between?
bstb3 said:
AJL308 said:
Isn't this a case of using currently "trendy" sounding language when it isn't actually applicable? Removing things, especially representations of real people, is not inclusive. It is the very opposite of inclusive, surely? It may well be the right thing to do (and that is debatable) but you can't say that you are moving towards a more inclusive future on the back of excluding something.
If the object being excluded by its very presence causes more exclusion than its mere exclusion would, then excluding the excludey object is the very definition of anti excludey inclusivity.If a statue of a person who engaged in slave trading should not be allowed to remain then, logically, shouldn't we just bulldoze Bristol and rebuild it as a modernist utopia free from the influence of the slave trade?
Edited by AJL308 on Friday 22 January 18:54
AJL308 said:
How does a statue of some bloke who died 300 years ago cause exclusion today? It doesn't. It matters not whether you agree with his values but those values do not serve to exclude anyone today from any part of society. The "inclusive" way of dealing with it is to say We don't agree with some of this person's views but we recognise that these were views held 300 years ago when values were markedly different than they are today and we are intelligent enough to accept that fact as part of our past. Simply removing stuff from public gaze because the opinions of some bloke centuries ago would not be widely accepted today smacks of revisionist history and is a dangerous path to set out on. Hiding away artefacts of the past is not healthy for public debate and historical investigation.
If a statue of a person who engaged in slave trading should not be allowed to remain then, logically, shouldn't we just bulldoze Bristol and rebuild it as a modernist utopia free from the influence of the slave trade?
Or just bulldoze Bristol and leave it at that If a statue of a person who engaged in slave trading should not be allowed to remain then, logically, shouldn't we just bulldoze Bristol and rebuild it as a modernist utopia free from the influence of the slave trade?
Rob_R said:
From a person standpoint, my main issue with BLM and by extension, critical race theorists and post-modernist, neo-Marxists in general is that I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for their views/goals. (Not that convincing arguments don't exist)
I'm not a vegan myself but I've heard many very convincing arguments for why one would want to become a vegan.
I'm very interested to hear supporting arguments for them though, particularly in the context of the UK where I believe their presence is far, far less justified than, say, the US.
Because you don’t get it. Also, you reveal your mindset with the highlighted part above: you effectively pool together these issues as neo-Marxists.I'm not a vegan myself but I've heard many very convincing arguments for why one would want to become a vegan.
I'm very interested to hear supporting arguments for them though, particularly in the context of the UK where I believe their presence is far, far less justified than, say, the US.
It takes for ever to convince folk like you, so there’s not really much point - it’s best to focus ones efforts elsewhere.
Carry on
AJL308 said:
bstb3 said:
AJL308 said:
Isn't this a case of using currently "trendy" sounding language when it isn't actually applicable? Removing things, especially representations of real people, is not inclusive. It is the very opposite of inclusive, surely? It may well be the right thing to do (and that is debatable) but you can't say that you are moving towards a more inclusive future on the back of excluding something.
If the object being excluded by its very presence causes more exclusion than its mere exclusion would, then excluding the excludey object is the very definition of anti excludey inclusivity.If a statue of a person who engaged in slave trading should not be allowed to remain then, logically, shouldn't we just bulldoze Bristol and rebuild it as a modernist utopia free from the influence of the slave trade?
Edited by AJL308 on Friday 22 January 18:54
Do you think there should be statues of Hitler, Mussolini or Idiamin? If you believe not, why?
maz8062 said:
Question:
Do you think there should be statues of Hitler, Mussolini or Idiamin? If you believe not, why?
Are you comparing a businessman who carried out a legal trade, and invested his wealth into the community where he lived, John cass foundation still supports the community, 300 years after his death, with hitler ? Do you think there should be statues of Hitler, Mussolini or Idiamin? If you believe not, why?
You need to come up with a better comparison.
“ The Black Lives Matter movement has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel peace prize for the way its call for systemic change has spread around the world.
In his nomination papers, the Norwegian MP Petter Eide said the movement had forced countries outside the US to grapple with racism within their own societies.
“I find that one of the key challenges we have seen in America, but also in Europe and Asia, is the kind of increasing conflict based on inequality,” Eide said. “Black Lives Matter has become a very important worldwide movement to fight racial injustice.
“They have had a tremendous achievement in raising global awareness and consciousness about racial injustice.””
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/29/blac...
In his nomination papers, the Norwegian MP Petter Eide said the movement had forced countries outside the US to grapple with racism within their own societies.
“I find that one of the key challenges we have seen in America, but also in Europe and Asia, is the kind of increasing conflict based on inequality,” Eide said. “Black Lives Matter has become a very important worldwide movement to fight racial injustice.
“They have had a tremendous achievement in raising global awareness and consciousness about racial injustice.””
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/29/blac...
They been awarded the Olof Palme human rights prize:
https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/01/30/21/black-l...
https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/01/30/21/black-l...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff