I got double-charged for an item in the supermarket the other day. No word from BLM on that. So they're in favour of shops double-charging people, right?
BLM's central discourse is not based on structural double-charging, as it is on structural racism, and BLM does not praise your supermarket, as it does the Cuban regime, so I'd better not waste my time answering this next time.
The purpose of my ridiculous point was solely to highlight the absurdity of your argument. But we can return to it, if you wish. I was attempting to distill all of the below into a few sentences, but let's have it in long form:
I know about the structural racism in Cuba because some time ago I met people who lived there, but googling:
"Manuel Cuesta, 57, an Afro-Cuban government opponent, says "there are the vestiges and remnants of symbolically cordial racism, structurally hidden, installed in the economic, institutional and political dynamics" of the country."
Source: Racism in Cuba: banned by law, alive on the streets.Not a word from BLM about structural racism in Cuba.
Okay, so "there are the vestiges and remnants of symbolically cordial racism, structurally hidden, installed in the economic, institutional and political dynamics of the country." Well, of course. Is there a country where this
isn't true? What is your point?
I mean, we can take another excerpt from your link:
Cuba used to have an open problem with racism until the communist revolution of 1959. Some buildings had signs saying "no dogs or blacks" while there was also racial segregation that saw black people barred from some clubs and schools. The government has enacted policies to address centuries of inequality due to slavery, which was abolished in 1886, and to promote access to higher education and public office.
So, yay for the communists! ... right? Which kind of undermines your point.
My point is that after the section I quoted, comes this sentence: "But racism persists."
My point is that you often insist on an absolute either/or, and resolutely refuse to consider shades of grey, whether on Venezuela, Cuba, or on the concept that is entirely shades of grey, that is entirely compromise: capitalist democracy.
Racism in Cuba is of course a complex issue, a real world situation with millions of people and many years of history. The elimination of racism, sexism etc., is an ongoing struggle, everywhere. A perfect solution will not be found, but every step in the right direction is to be welcomed.
Your article begins with:
The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is facing backlash after calling for the end of the U.S. government’s embargo on Cuba while praising the country for its “solidarity with oppressed peoples of African descent” amid historic anti-government protests.
The BLM comments are clumsy and poorly-timed, yes. But the US embargo has of course had a profoundly detrimental effect on Cuba. This is undeniable, surely? But I will not attempt to claim it is the only problem. The government is hugely at fault, too, as I believe I mentioned some time ago in my criticism of the Cuban regime, and its attempts to stifle press freedom. It's not either/or. It's both. The Cuban government over the years has done some good things, and many bad things. It should be perfectly possible to support the good things, without this being taken as tacit support for the bad things, without this being forced through outrageous contortions into your mangled argument that BLM=bad.
It is a movement that complains about the alleged structural racism in the USA, but not only does it not say a single word about structural racism in Cuba, it defends the dictatorial Cuban regime
This was where you started. The "alleged" structural racism comment I will let slide but again, to anyone with even a slight interest in data (which, on this specific topic, I've posted several times before), it's reminiscent of a certain freedom-lovin' fact-hatin' frequent flyer on the P&S board.
Your argument is that BLM isn't interested (or not interested primarily) in reducing structural, endemic racism in the US because... what? They're secretly (or, in your view, overtly) champions of repression?
I am becoming irritated, and these posts are both overly lengthy, and veering away from the focus on bitcoin. I'll try not to post in this thread again; I'm sure we will pick up these topics again later on, somewhere else, and may perhaps even, eventually, reach some common ground.
Back to bitcoin...