Topic: Proof BLM is racist or irrational - page 2. (Read 695 times)

This cannot be emphasized enough.

They are trying to divide America and start a race war. 

I am curious what would happen if theymos were to take a stand against BLM. Nearly no one has been willing to stand up to them, which has only empowered BLM to bully more businesses. I don’t doubt that bitcointalk would get smeared, but it might also get others to open their eyes to what kind of evil BLM is trying to push.

Really? How much of classic literature do you have to ban do get to that point?

Want to include all of Jack London's fiction, where he shows the N-word being used to refer to Polynesian Islanders in the common language of the 1890s?

How about Hemingway?

I'm going to stop at these two, but just recall, words mean different things in different times and places.

The thing about BLM is that they are against racism, but only one type of racism - White on Black racism. They don't bother about any form else, which is already a grey area.

Morgan Freeman said it best, if you want to get rid of racism, stop speaking about it. The movement itself is categorizing people based on their color. If they would just stop with calling people white and black it would help. Also, I don't understand why it's still fine to if 2 black people call each other the N-Word. Everyone should just stop using that word. So the next generations growing up will never hear it.

This is a good idea.  I'd say the declaration was supposed to be about the people and not the authors so make a declaration monument and leave the slave owners out of it.

The statues aren't history and they aren't the work of the person in them.  Statues are a celebration of a person. Even the concept of a statue is a holdover from absolute rulers.   We can celebrate a person's accomplishments without celebrating that person by name.  History is in the books.  No one is saying we shouldn't teach history.  We should teach all of their history and by then, no one will respect these monsters the way they do after learning whitewashed history. 

GW is celebrated for being the first president.  We can change the washington monument to the "presidential monument" making it a monument to the presidency itself and washington's name out of it.

This is not going to be easy and is just the beginning of a long period of undoing the whitewashing of history.

Maybe this is why so many businesses have pandered to them and are so intolerant of criticism of BLM. They are hoping their business will be sparred. 

Good! Outside of the fact that vandalism is totally wrong, you almost couldn't find a better president to do it to.

BLM is a Black supremacist group.  The successor of the infamous Black Power Movement and the Black Panther Party.

They advocate for economic segregation and the subjugation of other races.

They are anti-capitalist, socialist, anti-colonialist (read anti-white, anti-European) movement.

Their goal is to use the publicized police brutality videos to eventually eliminate the police.  With police gone, their plan is to violently take over white institutions and businesses.  Zimbabwe or South Africa style.

The problem for them is that the US is still a predominantly white country and this version of 'give me free stuff and get out' movement will fall on its ass.

---

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

This is quite true. Statues are complicated as well, in that they provide that direct link between the past and the present. Jefferson owing slaves in the time in which he lived is one thing. We might argue that were Jefferson alive today he would be highly unlikely to be in favour of slavery. What about a statue of Jefferson that is still standing today, as an object suitable for pride and veneration? Is a statue of Jefferson a monument to his achievements, or to the totality of his existence?

Let's assume for simplicity that Jefferson's only achievement was the Declaration of Independence, and that the only other thing we know about him is that he was a slave owner. The creation of a statue of the man would then be a celebration of the author of the Declaration - it would not be a celebration of him as a slave owner, there were plenty of slave owners, he was nothing special or statue-worthy in that regard. Then let's assume we erect a second statue, not depicting the human, but rather the Declaration itself. Presumably that second statue can stand for all time, or at least until we find the Declaration offensive. The difference is that the statue of the man has the potential to be construed as celebrating the man rather than his achievements. If it is a statue of the man alone, then should it to be removed because of his links to slavery, which we now find offensive? What about if the statue was of him holding the Declaration? Does that specification of context work to remove objections?

Tearing down statues of men who became rich and famous solely on the back of the slave trade is one thing, and is eminently justifiable; the issue of statues of figures such as Jefferson becomes clouded with nuance. Is his ownership of slaves incidental or is it sufficiently important to outweigh his achievements? What about the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves? What about establishing a nation and freeing it from the yoke of British tyranny? What about treatment of indigenous Americans?

Thats how grassroots motivation works.   People are always going to be concerned with what is happening to them and the people around them before they think about people on the other side of the world.  I'm sure if you asked any BLM supporter, what they thought about that, they'd think it was awful. 

Its like an airplane emergency when you put your oxygen mask on before helping the person next to you. 

thats exactly the point, they only target white people they never target black people, why is BLM not lobbying for human rights military intervention in africa outside of africa? to free people from slavery?

instead they insult foreigner and nonafricand and desecreate their historic monuments why? thats not how a humanitarian movement acts thats a racist movment, that tries to force an throught police on everyone.

Whataboutism is not an argument but a fallacy. And big disorganized movements like BLM and Antifa are not wholly responsible for acts done by parts of them. It would be the same thing to find an atheist serial killer and then try to paint all atheists as serial killers.



By the way, can you link to the specific Jefferson statue so we can learn about that story? I saw a video of some high schoolers taking down a jefferson statue. Honestly, I say it's fair game in the context of a high school. If the statue was in a museum, or if the statue itself had historical significance then I'd be against it. But some shitty little statue in a high school, I don't really care.

That being said, I don't really care if historical figures like Jefferson owned slaves. That's just the times they lived in. We should be able to take our history warts and all, just like if a great writer was a murderer or a rapist that wouldn't make his/her books any less valuable. Same with a great scientist. People are not either good or bad, they're more complicated than that.

BLM is an American movement that has gained global support.  Its not a Libyan movement.  Most of the supporters of the movement either don't know about or don't agree with your assessment of slavery in other countries. 

west still naivly blind on foreign and hostile NGOs

BLM is a terrorist organization that is also a black supremacy group. They only care about black people who have been killed by white people, even though these killings make up a smaller proportion of killings than populations of both would indicate.

I strongly suspect they are currently receiving foreign support, as their ability to spread propaganda has grown much too much, much too quickly. Even if they are not receiving foreign support, I believe something nefarious is going on.

a statue of Thomas jefferson has been violated, because he was also a "slave owner"

nowadays equity owners are in principle something similar.

but,

if BLM truly cares so much about slavery, why is it just tearing down statues of slave traders and slave owners from centuries long ago.

why aren't they protesting against the current slavery in Africa. why so hypocritical?

also why do they call the police when someone drives into their protesting rallies?

the only logical answer is BLM is simply a racist movement, otherwise it would protest for the current slaves in africa and not attack figures of american colonisation and foundation.