Saturday, July 16, 2016

Jews, Cops, and Black Lives Matter

Michael L.

{Also published at Elder of Ziyon and Jews Down Under.}

Writing in the Algemeiner, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) president Morton Klein tells us:
black lives#BlackLivesMatter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, and over 1,000 black “social justice” activists, including other leading #BlackLivesMatter activists and allies, signed a vicious antisemitic, anti-Israel manifesto called the “2015 Black Solidarity Statement with Palestine,” falsely accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” “brutality,” “massacres,” “apartheid,” “theft,” and “one-sided slaughter.” The “Black Solidarity with Palestine statement” also “wholeheartedly endorsed” BDS. The statement also touted international trips by “representatives of Black Lives Matter, Ferguson and other racial justice groups to Palestine” to strengthen their “joint struggle.”


It is clear that the Black Lives Matter movement, whatever else it may be, is definitely no friend to the Jewish State of Israel and, therefore, no friend to the Jewish people, in general.

No other ethnic group in the United States, outside of black people, themselves, supported the Civil Rights Movement more than Jewish people.

Yet the Black Lives Matter movement supports BDS which means seeking to undermine Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. What this means, of course, is subjecting the tiny Jewish minority in the Middle East to the tender mercies of their not-so welcoming neighbors who just happen to outnumber them in that part of the world by a factor of 60 or 70 to 1.

The bottom line, however, is that any group that supports BDS - or defames Israel by flinging around hate-filled propaganda like it is confetti - should not get the support of any self-respecting Jew.

"Ethnic Cleansing"!





“One-sided slaughter."!

There is something absolutely Medieval about all this.

This constant harping on the alleged misdeeds of the Jews has a very long and ignoble lineage. They might as well accuse us of killing Jesus or rolling non-Jewish babies around in barrels filled with spikes for the purpose of gathering the delicious goyisha blood to be employed in the ancient art of matzoh-making.

Every generation they tell one another just why it is that the Jews deserve a good beating. I mean, what kind of human beings would support one-sided slaughter? What does it say about the Jews of Israel that they practice land theft and apartheid? What does it say about them that they seemingly delight in the massacre of innocent children?

And what does it say about diaspora Jewry that they support such evil crimes against the innocent indigenous population?

Thus, what BlackLivesMatter is screeching to the world is that the very people who stood with African-Americans in solidarity, as they were breaking the shackles of Jim Crow. are, if not as oppressive as Nazis, at least as oppressive as Afrikaners during the period of South African apartheid.

{Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.}

Another question to ask, obviously, is where does all this leave American Jewish liberals?

BlackLivesMatter has the support of the president of the United States and, therefore, pretty much by definition, has the support of the Democratic Party.

This means that American Jews have the choice of either supporting a domestic political party that provides venues and financial assistance to anti-Semitic anti-Zionists or not supporting a domestic political party that provides venues and financial assistance to anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.

I, you will be shocked to learn, am going with the latter.


The #BlackLivesMatter movement’s incitement of anti-police violence helped create the environment that led to the Dallas massacre of police officers, according to experts including former New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir; US CENTCOM official Colonel Derek Harvey, and National Association of Police Organizations Executive Director William Johnson. Johnson stated:

“It’s a war on cops. . . . I think their [the Obama administration’s] continued appeasement at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems of this country has directly led to the climate that has made Dallas possible.”
I agree.

In just the same way that unjust anti-Semitic anti-Zionist rhetoric tends to result in the murder of Jews, so anti-cop rhetoric from Left organizations like BlackLivesMatter tends to result in dead cops.

This notion that white officers are running around the streets of America shooting up young black guys strictly for the hell of it is pernicious, wrong, entirely unjust, and results in violence against those who risk their necks on a daily basis to protect the American citizenry... including black people.

Black Lives Matter

According to a recent study by The National Bureau of Economic Research in a piece entitled, "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force", by Roland G. Fryer, Jr, the assumptions of BlackLivesMatter and their progressive-left allies are false.

The study did show some differentiation on how police around the country tended to deal with black people versus how they dealt with white people. So, for example, black people were 16 percent more likely to be placed in hand-cuffs upon arrest and 18 percent more likely to be pushed into a wall in the event of resistance.

However we also read this in the New York Times piece examining the story:
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias. (My emphasis.)

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
All this national chaos and mayhem and marching and rioting and, now, in Dallas, the murder of five innocent cops and for what?

What we are seeing in terms of this vile anti-Semitic anti-Cop movement is not grounded in anything that resembles reality.

What it really is is a chimera; it is the last gasp of 60s radicalism seeking to remain relevant... and innocent people, like those officers in Dallas, will die to feed this hungry ghost from the past.


  1. "According to a recent study by The National Bureau of Economic Research in a piece entitled, "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force", by Roland G. Fryer, Jr, the assumptions of BlackLivesMatter and their progressive-left allies are false."

    Not so coincidentally their assumptions about Jews, Israel, and its arch nemesis, the "Palestinian cause" is also false.
    Just the fact that they are again mentioning Ferguson speaks to a level of ignorance I wouldn't care to touch.
    When we see antisemitic tropes being thrown around with reckless abandon it is pretty good barometer of something foul at play.
    The Civil Rights Movement was something I truly admired. This is not that movement. This is more like thuggish totalitarian shenanigans.
    To paraphrase Obama's remarks about the police, he is "acting stupidly. "

    1. Between the end of WWII and the late 1960s the Civil Rights Movement did amazing work and they changed the country in a positive way.

      They strangled Jim Crow and got black people onto the voter registration rolls even as black incomes were increasing and they found an ally in the White House in the form of a big Texan.

      But, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

      So, year after year and decade after decade, no matter the changing circumstances of people of color in the US, the New Left continued to swing around charges of racism like a cudgel.

      After awhile it was no longer about creating a fair society with equal opportunity, but about using race-related issues to beat the holy crap out of one's political opponents by demeaning their character in public so that they become politically persona non-grata.

      The truth is that black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter.

      It's really about hating on whitey.

      If they honestly cared about black lives they would discuss black-on-black violence which is far-and-away more prevalent then cop-on-black violence, but they don't.

  2. Even if this one study proves true (which I must admit I'm skeptical of), for you to write off black people's experiences with the police and with an insanely biased and truly criminal "justice" system is terrifying to me. What high and mighty vantage point do you see from, that you know all their claims are illegimate? Just because BLM has bought the package of lies about Israel does not invalidate the larger and, for reasons too obvious to mention, more immediately important issue facing people of colour in the States (and, to a much lesser degree, in Canada). BLM's stance on Israel is itself grossly anti-Jewish and delusional, and therefore drives off potential allies (as here), as well as making the problem they're trying to correct that much harder to address, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real and doesn't need to be addressed. Instead a loud and justified challenge to the movement's faults, I am hearing instead, from many Jewish sources (sad to say), a complete dismissal of their concerns. You may not be fans of TABLET, I don't know, but I found this article, by an American Jew of colour, very important:

    1. I am not dismissing legitimate black concerns. That is a deflection.

      There is only one question here:

      Are police departments around the country disproportionately shooting up the black community?

      According to my Professor of Economics friend at Harvard the answer is "no."

      You are correct, of course, that it is merely one study, but I would not be too quick to dismiss a Harvard statistician, sociologist, and professor of economics.

    2. btw, I will check out the article and, yes, I am familiar with Tablet.

      Thank you for your comment and please feel free to disagree with me as you will.

    3. The real problem is that unionized city worker thugs are executing citizens during routine revenue collection stops without consequences. Some form of mandatory punishment for government empowered abusers will stop that. If BLM really cared for anyone's lives they'd be collecting signatures to put laws like that on the ballot.
      Not surprising to see a movement organized by state worshipping progressives deflect attention from their beloved police state to people they really hate.

  3. Hi Mike L, Michael C here!

    I hear ya, but I'm not "deflecting" when I say you're dismissing legitimate concerns because you write things like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The point is, it IS broke, still (even after the Civil Rights movements and with a black president). And this is so even if BLM is trying to fix things with one hand while (inadvertently or not) breaking things with the other (or at least with their feet).

    I saw the report on the study, too, and while skeptical, I'm not trying to dismiss it. Indeed, it would be great if it were true, but it still wouldn't disqualify from consideration the daily experiences of people of colour with "the system" (to throw around a little New Left designation!).

    You also write that "The truth is that black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter", and that "If they honestly cared about black lives they would discuss black-on-black violence which is far-and-away more prevalent then cop-on-black violence, but they don't". But I would put money on the fact that many of those people have indeed been fighting black-on-black violence in their communities for decades, you just don't hear about. And it's an entirely separate issue from police violence, which has to do with the pattern of behaviour of the state itself, which obviously must be held to the highest standards of fairness and care.

    So yes, you are sorta being "dismissive" here, sorry to say. But I'm not looking for a fight, just trying to handle the most difficult sort of subject with respect for its many dimensions.

    BTW, I just wrote a post to BLM-Toronto challenging their statement of principles, which of course singled out white supremacy, patriarchy, oppression of minorities, etc., but never mentioned Islamic supremacy, patriarchy, oppression of minorities, etc. This, to me, is where their organizational racism shows up - not so much in their being against whites, but in their being blind to brown Nazism.

    Finally, I have heard some disturbed "kill police"-type chants from some of the demos, but I would hope and expect that movement leaders reject this sort of destructive, if entirely predictable tendency.

    Best regards ...

    1. One of the founders of BLM-Toronto is a Muslim herself.

      "On Feb. 9, Yusra Khogali tweeted, 'Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz'"

      As for "brown Nazism", didn't you hear Marc Lamont Hill and Ebony Magazine editor, Jamillah Lemieux, proclaim brown racism impossible? Only white people can hate - in the eyes of BLM and their supporters.

    2. Michael,
      When you say that black crime and police actions are separate problems I am not sure you are correct. In fact, I believe they are interrelated. You say that you are sure that many BLM people have been engaged in stopping high crime rates in black communities. How many is that, and why haven't I heard about it from them?
      But I'll tell you this, the high violent crime/murder rates in black communities are hands-down the far larger problem, if black lives matter. We don't even know that cops are out there gunning for blacks, whereas the number of deaths from murder are well-defined.
      In Chicago, a city that is 1/3 black, 70% of the murders are committed by black people and the actual numbers are extremely high. That, to me, sounds a lot more urgent than the number of deaths in police involved shootings, most of which at least, involve being called to a crime scene where the criminals are armed. One of the things that would be needed to stop all the violence would be a more massive police presence. I don't believe that BLM would be on board for that. Violent crime is on the rise after receding for decades. Police shootings of blacks is down 70% over 45 years.
      Believe me, I don't dismiss any black person's fear of police out of hand, but to me BLM is about left-wing power politics of grievance and a great many of its supporters are pawns.
      I've met good cops and bad.
      There are all sorts of contributing factors to black people's experience with the criminal justice system and deserve serious study and full discussion. In 2016, simple racism by police might be the least of it.
      Three more police officers were shot this morning in Baton Rouge, LA.
      What's BLM's solution to policing high crime areas?
      BTW, our "black president," (to quote you), Obama, is part of the problem here at home, and with regard to Israel and the Middle East in general. He is a disaster. He couldn't put out a fire with the Atlantic Ocean.

    3. Michael,

      thank you for what is turning out to be a terrific conversation.

      When I wrote "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," I was not referring to the social-economic experience of black people in the US, which I agree is "broke."

      I was referring, instead, to a highly successful political tactic as derived from the New Left's interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement. One of my major criticisms is concerned with the way that much of the Left wields charges of racism like a political cudgel, which is just what BLM does.

      My primary thesis is that the very foundation of BLM is flimsy because it is grounded in the notion that white cops are running around the country gunning for young black men.

      This is simply not true and claiming it is so incites people to violence against the cops in much the same way that the blood-libel incites violence toward Jews.

      Professor Fryer found no bias in police shootings according to ethnicity in his study.

      Now, he may be wrong, but is he likely to be that wrong?

      I mean, is it possible that the police around the country are so disproportionately targeting young black men that he could have missed it entirely?

      I don't think so and, if the professor and I are correct, it means that BLM justifies violence toward the very people who risk their lives on a daily basis to keep the rest of us safe.

      Opportunist jihadists and “Black Lives Matter”, a growing alliance
      July 11, 2016 - by Christine Williams
      Islam, Revolution, and Black Lives Matter
      July 14, 2016 - by Christine Williams
      Dallas and the Leftist/Islamic Alliance
      CAIR’s – and the Left’s – chickens come home to roost.
      July 11, 2016 - Robert Spencer

    5. Thank you, Mike, for providing the forum and for writing the post that started us off!

      I don't doubt, Yosef22adar, any of the accusations about Islamist attempts to co-opt BLM, nor about many BLM leaders being seduced by it. There have always been people drawn to such positions, and there are divisions in the black community like every community regarding Israel. We know MLK Jr. was pro-Zionist, and others are frothingly anti-Jewish. No news there.

      That this is a particularly important point today, given the world-wide rise of Islamism (as compared to the 60s), is also something I wouldn't dispute. I, too, fear that the anti-Jewish position becomes, with BLM, the default. But I also know people deeply dedicated to the core notion, that black lives (like all lives) matter, who resist such a tendency. No movement with as broad a base of support in the black community as BLM is going to be monolithic. And the more Islamist it goes, the more it needs to be resisted. This still does not invalidate the concerns that drive most of its adherents, who (I'm hoping) aren't university students obsessed with Israel, but are everyday people upset with genuine American social problems.

      I agree with Mike, too, about the danger of "racism" being used as a "cudgel", but it seems to me, like all the rest, quite inevitable, for the simple reason that people are often idiots. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged, of course. Nor does it mean that it isn't ultimately a divisive and simplistic notion that needs to be seen through. But as long as there is real racism at work in society, as I believe there is, "race" will continue to be a factor.

      None of the criticisms of BLM, to my mind, disqualify the criticism of systemic racism. The high rate of black-on-black crime, and the high rate of crime in black communities, is either because black people are more criminal by nature, which I think (hope) we'd all agree isn't the case; or because black culture glorifies violence, which is true but hardly confined to black culture and hardly sufficient to account for the problem (unless black people are more criminal by nature); or because because the legacies of racism endure (in housing, employment, school funding, criminal justice sentencing and incarceration, etc.), leading to black people being treated unfairly on a regular basis. As far as I can tell, this isn't white guilt, it's realism. I choose to believe what masses of black people themselves are saying. I do not believe they are manipulated dupes who don't know their own situations. We're not talking Palestinians here, who have been indoctrinated by a massive, indeed omnipresent propaganda campaign in a completely media- and thought-controlled environment, and who are indeed the tragic pawns of Arab/Islamist perfidy and lust for war.

      Perhaps I'm being misled – by black friends telling of their own experiences, by black and other community leaders whose work and views I otherwise deeply respect, and by my own lying eyes. Perhaps the accusations of racism are just being ginned up so the Marxists can take over America.

      I, rather, believe that America-haters and Islamists and racists will naturally and predictably try to take over any such movement, just as, from my experience, religious bigots and racists and people with fascistic tendencies also populate and attempt to claim the right wing. Neither progressives nor conservatives are immune to idiocy and destructiveness.

      Finally, I don't think Fryer's study is sufficient to base a position on, because again, it has nothing to say about disproportionate targeting and incarceration, which are contextual factors that colour black interactions with cops. I do hope it's right, though.

    6. This was an analysis (on your main analysis/post). Still waiting for practical "solutions". Not a list of frenemies, of course.

    7. Hi Yosef. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "This was an analysis...". And I have no practical solutions (other than talk and more talk, which is all we can do here). What kinds of solutions are you referring to, and to which specific issue? Continuing racism? BLM turning Islamist?

      Please note, too, everyone, that my mind isn't closed on this. I'm reading conservative sites these days at least as much if not more than liberal ones, having somewhat shed my temperamental anti-conservative bias. I can even watch Melanie Phillips, because I agree with certain of her points, though her positions on gender and sexuality strike me as ridiculous. But Ted Cruz disgusts me, Donald Trump and his supporters horrify me, and most of the anti-BLM things I've read and seen seem to me riddled with presumptions and usually lack even the attempt to see things from the point of view of the marchers.

    8. I've been visiting websites both "pro" and "con" BLM (or however one wants to phrase the distinction). I believe it's important to go to sites whose ideological bent you don't necessarily already support. My discovery, after very little time: There are many reasonable discussions out there, from both (one should say, all) sides of this fraught and complex issue, and they are bringing the many elements of the situation to light. Is there crap? Of course! But it seems to me clearly and absolutely necessary that these issues are brought out into the open, and BLM is doing just that, however imperfectly. Better there, in the open, being debated, being challenged back and forth, being defined and redefined, than silence, or ignoring the problem, or trivialization, or demonization.

    9. You asked
      "What kinds of solutions are you referring to, and to which specific issue?"

      One of my points:
      Too many (complicated issues) here - humanity can debate for the next 357 years
      (causes, criminality, etc, etc, etc - and some of us make a living from this :)

      My (other) point:
      Your post and comments are Black-o-centric, instead of Jew-centric :
      we are talking about supporters of Pal-arabs, jihadis,
      connected with (traditionally antisemitic and Israel-hating) leftists.
      In my poor opinion, this ought to be the point of view,
      and afterwards we could try to be in other people's shoes.

      Note :
      I agree with Melanie Phillips, but I do not describe myself as conservative or right-wing or something of all the (updated) Western labels. I am Jewish. And this is more than enough for me.


      (This is the 3rd attemption to post the comment)

    10. Thank you, Yosef. I agree, the debates are endless, the issues madly complex. My point is, really, that we are not talking ONLY or even primarily about antisemites and Israel haters but about a much wider phenomenon, of which BLM forms a part. No apologies for the "black-o-centrism", though - the issue is, after all, about the situation of black people in the States. That being said, I've made my feelings about their anti-Israelism clear.

      I'm obviously not an anti-leftist, given what I see as the many great achievements and sometimes-proud history of leftism, nor am I a leftist, given its many horrible crimes and sometimes-shameful history. And I'm also obviously not right wing, which has both greatness and horror on ITS side, too. Neither am I Jewish (my father was), though I believe unfailingly in the Jewish state and people, and have indeed been convinced that what Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz calls the "regressive left", at this point in time, is no friend of mine.

  4. Few deny blacks in America are treated the same as everyone else. All minorities suffer from discrimination. American minorities, compared to other countries, fare well and the improvements since the civil rights movement are astounding. The glass is more than half full.

    BLM should have been called "BLM, too!" because that was the actual message. However, as it has manifested, it has become a racist entity that and incites violence and promotes intolerance toward whites.

    Much of the leadership and money behind BLM align with the movement to take America down. These are no friends toward Jews, either.

    The black community, and many leaders in the areas where black on black crime is rampant, is filled with corruption. Moynihan's warnings from years ago were ignored. BLM should place some emphasis on these matters, but it does not. It is too obsessed on practicing identity politics, and in the end that will be its downfall.

  5. According to the NYT, in addition to the Fryer report finding of no racial bias in police shooting, in situations where lethal force might have been justified:

    officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.

    This shoots a hole in the narrative that cops are out there shooting blacks. To acknowledge the reality would be an admission that ideologically driven proponents cannot afford to make. So they won't.

    1. I respectfully disagree (again). If these stats are true, they complicate the picture. But prison stats alone are enough to show a deep and systemic problem (unless you think that blacks are more criminal by nature).

      As I wrote in my response above, non-ideologically motivated regular everyday people are saying they are targetted to a wildly disproportionate degree. These are human beings, just asking to heard when they share their experiences, when they say being treated unfairly, unjustly, on a regular basis. Why is this so hard to acknowledge? Why use every argument to dismiss what seems glaringly obvious, that the system - from voter suppression to police harrassment to prisons - is fraught with deep problems?

      Do none of the videos of police shootings of obviously unresisting people bother you, or do you look desperately in every instance for something that will excuse the police and justify their actions? Even if they're killing white, brown AND black people, shouldn't their actions be brought into public scrutiny?

    2. Michael,
      How do prison stats alone prove conclusively a systemic problem " (unless you think that blacks are more criminal by nature)"?

    3. "Prove conclusively" was sloppy and thoughtless, but "provide compelling evidence", perhaps ...

      So: while I couldn't cite them, and I'm going from memory and very little actual research (inexcusable, perhaps, but hey, I'm in an online discussion and that's pretty tame by online standards), I will go ahead and assert that prison stats provide compelling evidence that people of colour are targetted, arrested and convicted in a profoundly biased way. Am I wrong about that? Are there strong refutations of assertions such as those found in books like "The New Jim Crow"?

      I really have no reason NOT to expect that the stats would prove my point, just as I would expect a revoltingly large minority of Europeans to be antisemitic and only a tiny minority to deeply aware of the issues related to the Jews, even if I don't know the exact numbers.

    4. These are human beings, just asking to heard when they share their experiences, when they say being treated unfairly, unjustly, on a regular basis. Why is this so hard to acknowledge?

      Are you trying to say that only you care? Do you know enough about people you criticize to make that judgment?

      Nor should you misrepresent. Saying the BLM movement is racist at the top is NOT making "every argument to dismiss." In fact, the disparate treatment that blacks received was expressly acknowledged!

      Frankly, the views you proffer have seeds of humanitarian racism that the world is coming to see as contributing to the environment of inequality, bigotry and intolerance by excusing it.

      In other words, one may criticize BLM and still be a proponent of civil rights and equality for all. Indeed, it may even be considered an exercise in support of those principles.

  6. Hmm, so it's up to YOU to make the call that "the glass is more than half full", to tell people that they're overreacting?

    I understand the criticism that BLM is "no friend of Jews", and I fear that this is only too true, given its uncritical support of anti-Israeli Islamism. They are, of course, no different in this regard than the majority of the world, tragically. It still doesn't justify the paternalistic, "if only they'd listen to us" tone when it comes to their own issues. What it does justify is loud, unequivocal response (like this one: that delegitimizes the anti-Israelism, specifically. Everyone's thinking is going to have to get more complex to deal with today's world – yours, mine, BLM's ...

    But why is it so hard to listen to – to HEAR – the voices of the everyday people who are saying that things are bad for black people in the States, and that policing and the horrendously biased "justice" system are major sources of the problem? To turn the focus to black-on-black crime is the true deflection here. The movement is responding to the actions of the state, through its criminal justice arm, actions which must be held to the highest standard, surely.

    Furthermore, anti-Black racism in the States is profoundly different than discrimination against other minorities, just as anti-Judaism is different from all other forms of prejudice. In both cases, history should inform the discussion, and to brush off the enduring American history of white supremacy and the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow and what has been rightly called "the new Jim Crow" is, itself, racist. Just as dismissing the history of Jewish persecution when considering the situation of present-day anti-Judaism is antisemitic.

    All that being said, I agree with you that the notion of identity politics is fraught with unsolvable problems and that it is, in many ways, a symptom of a degenerated discourse. But the only way out is through. It has to be discussed, not dismissed. Identity IS an issue for many people, and a valid one that must be thought through.

    And since, for the most part, our discourse is the only thing we have much control over, shouldn't it strive to be as fair and true to the realiy of the situation as possible? Isn't it better to tackle the issues, rather than to tell people to shut up, move along, nothing to see here?

    The most disturbing thing about the common criticisms of BLM is the accusation of bad faith. I do not believe that the majority of the people marching behind these banners are doing so in bad faith, nor that they have been duped by corrupt leaders. Of course there are corrupt leaders! There are corrupt leaders everywhere. But none of these arguments delegitimate the reasons for the movement itself.

  7. No more than it's up to YOU to lecture that criticisms of BLM are tantamount to dismissing claims of discrimination against blacks.

    Or that pointing to the inconsistency of BLM regarding black on black crime is deflection.

    Who are you to say people are not hearing because they speak against what they see as clear instances of racism and violence by BLM, in violation of the philosophy of equal rights put forth by Dr. King?

    No one to my knowledge said that all who attend BLM protests are acting in bad faith, any more than saying all Muslims are represented by Jihadists. That does not stop people from raising this red herring.

    The leadership and financial backers of BLM are up to no good and are not about equality, but ideology, and that is apparent by a cursory amount of research.

    Among those who sympathize with BLM are countless good people who are naive and ignorant and who do not know about the intent of BLM. And there are plenty who know just what is going on.

    Perhaps you should be more educated about the "reasons" for the movement itself. It is not about the idea of equality. BLM is identity politics at its core, the politics that Bill Clinton said was the "greatest threat" to America's future.

  8. Evil. Tragic. Yes, it may well happen more, and BLM should (and, I expect, will) condemn it. But does it invalidate the overall argument about the cruel situation for people of colour in the States, and the fact that someone (and if not BLM, then who?) needs to bring it out into the open? Surely THAT'S the point of the whole discussion, isn't it?

    1. Why so quick to lay fault with white privilege and show so little concern for what occurs in the black community?

      Lots of people are well intentioned with regard to racial inequality. That does not mean this issue has not been stoked by people who use for ulterior purpose. In using it for politics, maybe the issue becomes overstated as to its severity. It pales in comparison to the actual struggles to obtain civil rights in this country. Since then, incredible strides have been made. Not to mention that America is one of the most tolerant places on the planet.

      No offense, but you sound like someone who lacks context and therefore must try to draw equivalences. Doing so trivializes something in which many actually gave their lives for.

  9. Replies
    1. Because, as oldschooltwentysix has stated, this is one of the most tolerant countries in the world. You described it as "cruel" to "people of color," but people of color have been voluntarily coming to this country to make a better life for themselves for generations. We have had, what up until the EU completely lost its collective mind, probably the most liberal and fair immigration policy in the world. From what I know of my uncle becoming a Canadian citizen, it is far, far easier to become an American than it is to become a Canadian.
      While we have an unfortunate history of slavery and racism, we invented neither but have done what many others have never even tried to rectify that. For example, slavery. The US has done more than its part to defeat that ancient practice all over the world, where for thousands of years it was never even morally questioned. This country has laws to protect all Americans from discrimination, and affirmative action programs in education and hiring. We have made steady strides in moving blacks into the mainstream. We're not perfect. Sometimes we have failed and still fail, but our government does not condone racial discrimination. We have no racial laws. Nor do we as a country and a people condone racial discrimination. If you're looking for countries that do promote and encourage discrimination toward their minorities and others I would suggest you look elsewhere. Examples abound.

    2. Amen to all that! America is one the greatest countries in history, for the very reasons you cite. But (to grossly generalize though not dissimulate), while white people tend to say "Look how great it is! Look how far we've come!", people of colour tend to say "Look at all the unending stream of crap we have to deal with on a daily basis, even if it's all much better than slavery and Jim Crow". The Voting Rights Act was recently struck down, for heaven's sake! And the very first thing the states it targetted did was to enact biased, suppressive voter ID laws!

      That there remain massive and widespread problems, despite the advances, is what my black friends tell me, is what black people I admire and respect say, is what the stats indicate (again: prison, housing, employment, etc., etc.), and is what would seem entirely predictable and to be expected, given the history. (History takes forever to work out!)

      Why is this acknowledgment so controversial? Why does it have to be answered with deflection, dismissal and denial? Can it not just be acknowledged, despite all the difficulties?

      I don't mean to imply that the situation is terrible overall for people of colour. Of course people come to N. America precisely because there is relative freedom and justice, because these are not generally cruel cultures. People also come because here the possibility to improve things also exists, so that real problems have a hope of being addressed.

    3. The Voting Rights Act was recently struck down

      No it wasn't, unless you possess the same mind set that excuses human rights violations on a world scale while expecting America to practice perfection.

    4. I don't understand. What has anything I wrote got to do with excusing any country's human rights violations? And when did perfection ever come up?

    5. Oh, and Voting Rights Act: Shelby County v. Holder, no? Although, according to a short Google search, as of June 2015 at least, there are moves to restore the cuts:

      Don't know where things stand now, but I'm not TOO far off the mark, I don't think.

    6. No, you are OFF the mark. The Act was not struck down, and there is a difference of opinion about whether pre-clearance remains necessary.

      Harping on race relations in the USA, without context, IS both akin to ignoring race relations elsewhere and seeking perfection, especially when, in fact, the USA IS closer to perfection than almost every other state on the planet.

      Now this is going in circles. The points have been made. Which means there will be no more comments from this venue.

  10. I'm relatively new to politi-talk on the intertoobs, and trying to get a sense of how to engage in it in a relatively constructive way. I value the acknowledgment of reality's complexities above all, at least when we just discussing things and not having to vote or fight. I like John Locke's assertion that "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." Denial is so terribly easy. (Locke's affirmation itself may, of course, be highly debatable.)

    But in the spirit of internetism, allow me to get snarky and polemical, if you will. It's for the sake of working out the ideas themselves, and not because I want to be offensive, either!

    You wrote, "Saying the BLM movement is racist at the top is NOT making 'every argument to dismiss'". I can't but agree with that. However, "Saying the BLM movement is racist at the top" and THEN, subsequently, "making 'every argument to dismiss'" is a different thing. The latter negates the former. And I feel that you are doing the latter by basically saying that people overreacting, though I appreciate (and do myself feel terrified by) the hijacking of the issue for nefarious and unrelated purposes (i.e., anti-Israelism). At the same time, there will no doubt be "stoking", and it should be arrested (figuratively or, if necessary, literally). And, of course, while "one may criticize BLM", as I myself did a few times in my posts here and to them, that they will reject much of the criticism (sometimes rightly, sometimes not) is to be expected. That they will bully and preach and hate, too, is to be expected. Everyone is human, and quite capable of being horrible. (And sometimes it really IS necessary, as every civil rights movement knows. It took ACT UP to make Reagan say "AIDS".) That they should be challenged is absolutely necessary, too. (Though I don't have high hopes for anyone's ability to see things from other people's points of view, one can sometimes be surprised.)

    I do certainly hope I'm "humanitarian", and I certainly don't want to fall into the traps that it can present. But granting the legitimacy of the concerns expressed by BLM doesn't mean agreeing with every policy or supporter of BLM. If the movement does NOT vigourously denounce violence, it will lose its credibility with many people who now support it. It is faced with a crisis.

    That "incredible strides have been made" in US race relations is true, and to be honoured. But from my limited though not rare exposure to these issues, it would appear to me that systemic racism continues to plague a country that was largely built on it. How could it NOT? It simply makes no sense to me to imagine that, while "better", things are anywhere near as good as they need to — and can perhaps — become.

    I'm not hating the States here, but like Germany, historical realities and their continuing legacies need to be regularly and systematically addressed. In Canada, First Nations communities are still deeply traumatized by colonization (not that I'm a card-carrying "anti-imperialist"). That similar trauma plagues the black community in the States and Canada is to be expected, and combined with the array of systemic obstacles, the anger seems to me deeply justified. The better and worse ways of addressing the issues will only be sorted out with much thought and many efforts essayed. And things usually only get better after they get worse, anyway.

    1. You said:

      These are human beings, just asking to heard when they share their experiences, when they say being treated unfairly, unjustly, on a regular basis. Why is this so hard to acknowledge? Why use every argument to dismiss what seems glaringly obvious, that the system - from voter suppression to police harrassment to prisons - is fraught with deep problems?

      Saying BLM is racist is not a failure to acknowledge inequality.

      It is not using every argument to dismiss to refute points made about others, particularly when there is ignorance about the predilections and backgrounds of people about which assumptions are made.

      The silly part is that, except for your unfounded assumptions that create a easily recognized progressive bias, you appear to agree with the substantive points that were offered.

    2. Yes, we seem to agree, as you say, on certain substantive points — and to stop discussing things! except for ...

      I haven't heard any agreement from you that "the system", as I wrote many times, "is fraught with deep problems", which I believe is the deepest reason for BLM. BLM is not just an organization, it is a movement of people. If there are not deep problems, then what does that say about the majority of the people marching? That they are either dupes, liars or seditious, either acting in bad faith or manipulated? If I'm blind to any other possibilities, my eyes are openable, given sufficient evidence and sound reasoning.

      Yes, I'm progressively biased. You saw my mark! But I'm also conservative in certain ways, and completely, even right-wingedly pro-Zionist.

    3. I started in this thread by saying that blacks are not treated like everyone else. Don't believe, however, the system is fraught with deep problems. Think that is an overstatement. Also think that diverts from and minimizes the other reasons that contribute to the terrible conditions experienced in much of the black community.

      Also addressed the many good-intentioned in BLM. Believe many among them are misled and duped, yes. Celebrities and cultural forces help make BLM an in thing, to stand for the oppressed. Ignorance also exists about the people who founded and back the movement financially, and the agenda of the activists. How much do you know about these principals and stakeholders?

      Think about it in the Israel context. It is analogous.

  11. BLM is a radical Marxist organization and thus its main goal is to advance the destruction of current society/culture. The lies and deceit are part of that as always.

  12. There are plenty of racist movements in the US. This one is different because it operates with government semi-sanction and approval.