Munroe Bergdorf makes George Floyd/Black Lives Matter all about Munroe Bergdorf

I would rather hear some practical solutions about making the police more accountable and improving the condition of black people in America and elsewhere.

One of the characteristics of Critical Race Theory is that it doesn't really talk about practical solutions or concretely improving people's conditions.

I've always liked John Scalzi's computer game analogy for what privilege means:
whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

For me, personally, I always think of it like this - I will never have my job application float to the bottom of the pile because I have an obviously ethnic minority name. People in positions of authority over me will never look at my skin colour and immediately attach a whole range of unwarranted personality traits to me ("the aggressive black woman", "the sassy black woman", "the unreliable black woman"). Instead, they'll see me as a blank slate and wait till I speak and act before deciding what sort of person I am. I don't have to worry about my son hanging out at the skate park and being harrassed by police, repeatedly and systematically.

Sure some of these things may occasionally happen to me by accident (job application reminding someone her school bully was called Cara and dumping my application because it makes her uncomfortable, someone deciding I've got a bitchy resting face so am likely to have a bad attitude, police deciding this gang of teens on this particular night may well have been up to no good). But it won't happen repeatedly and systematically.*

"Privilege" has unfortunately come to set a lot of people's hackles up (not least because "straight white male" for instance may encompass some teenage boy on a sink estate in the NE with three generations of joblessness behind him and a failing comprehensive school on offer to him that no-one has the money or political will to fix). For this reason, it's a lousy choice of word. But the phenomenon it describes - that some groups of people systematically and routinely have it better than others - is a real one.

*Unless I'm in an industry which still has entrenched, systemic sexism - which is one reason why I have great sympathy with the concept the word "privilege" is meant to describe, because like all women of my age, I did have to battle my way through similar on account of my sex.

I'm finding it very disturbing going through my FB feed at the moment. Person after person is using these same phrases, recommending the same books, talking about the same ideas, and in every one the implication is that if this isn't obvious to you, you are part of the problem. They say things like "this is uncomfortable reading but you have to be willing to do the emotional work to be an ally".

I'm feeling this too. A lot of doubleplusgood talk from people who are mostly white and mostly live in Europe.

It's trivializing the issue, IMHO. I would rather hear from those it actually effects (yes, including MB). I would rather hear some practical solutions about making the police more accountable and improving the condition of black people in America and elsewhere.

The capacity to go about your business without being shot by police etc is not a privilege. It is everyone's right.

I've always hated this use of the word "privilege". To me, "privilege" suggests something extra and unearned. Also, telling someone they're "privileged" can put them on the defensive, especially if they've had a lot of hards knocks in their lives (and saying "your life would be even harder if you were black", while probably true, is not helpful).

Talking in terms of "rights" is much more honest and less easy to argue against. Not being shot by police isn't a "privilege", it's a right that everyone deserves.

I don't often agree with Munroe, but on this I do. Its a weird feeling tbh. I came in here ready to be pissed off, but found myself nodding along with her.

So is skin colour.

But then, skin colour is to race as sex is to gender. And we know damned well MB does not recognise this fact.

Well race has not always been predicated on skin colour, and it's not always now, either. It has some relation to ethnicity which is a real if difficult to pin down thing. But race, the boundaries it draws, are basically human-made. In the American context race as meaning black and white rather than being understood in nationalistic terms was created to establish a class system. So it's roots are economic.

Critical race theory (where these ideas come from) is a possible explanation but it's not the only explanation. Critical race theory is problematic in its own right because it's very difficult to critique the ideas it puts forward. Criticism, questions, non immediate acceptance is seen as racist and/or evidence that the existing system is racist and is seeking to uphold white supermacy.

Yes, exactly. And MB's comment, as are many going around right now, is total CRT.

I'm finding it very disturbing going through my FB feed at the moment. Person after person is using these same phrases, recommending the same books, talking about the same ideas, and in every one the implication is that if this isn't obvious to you, you are part of the problem. They say things like "this is uncomfortable reading but you have to be willing to do the emotional work to be an ally".

The phrase "educate yourself" comes up again and again.

I am wondering, how have these people, the majority white, fairly well educated, liberal, coming up with these names and titles? Have they actually read all these books? There is a whole group of conservative black American writers who talk about police violence, I am not seeing them being posted about. There is a whole group of leftist black American writers, I am not seeing them being posted about.

These groups not only have varied thoughts about police violence, different sets of facts they think are important, they have varied thoughts about the origins of racism, what to do about it. Why isn't that an important conversation? It's not like CRT seems to be working out so well in terms of improving the position of non-whites, or improving race relations.

But you really don't dare say any of this to anyone, much less try and actually discuss the issues, the numbers or statistics, because immediately you are a racist if you do.

It's not really that odd in the end that MB believes in CRT and in gender theory. They are cooked up in the very same pot.

And I also think that the statement as a whole is more justifiable in terms of sex than race, because sex at the least is a biological and genetic fact.

So is skin colour.

But then, skin colour is to race as sex is to gender. And we know damned well MB does not recognise this fact.

When you think the social construct is innate (which in a glorious Freudian slip I accidentally mistyped as inane) and use this "fact" as a basic premise in all your thinkings, it's all going to come unstuck in very short order.

Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the violence of men any more. Yes ALL men. Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a sex is built on the backs, blood and death of women. Your entire existence is drenched in misogyny. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s.
Come see me when you realise that misogyny isn't learned, it's inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege. Once men begin to admit that their sex is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth… then we can talk. Until then stay acting shocked about how the world continues to stay f at the hands of your ancestors and your heads that remain buried in the sand with hands over your ears.

Here is the thing. I think a lot of people would have a serious problem with a statement like this, a lot of women would. I think L'Oreal would and might sever ties with a model who said this publicly, though men are not their customer base to the same extent.

And I also think that the statement as a whole is more justifiable in terms of sex than race, because sex at the least is a biological and genetic fact. You can make a good materialist argument that social differences in the treatment of men and women stem from their physical differences.

There is a huge honking difference between biological essentialism about sex and biological essentialism about race.

The histories of black people being in the US and being in the UK are very different. That difference is being blurred more and more and I think it harms race relations in the UK.

This is a really important point. Our two cultures (US/UK) are really quite different, more than you might expect if you haven't lived in both or otherwise had a full understanding of both. It would be weird, for example, to talk about 'indigenous people of colour' here. Looking at US statements through a UK lens is likely to get distorted.

Criticism, questions, non immediate acceptance is seen as racist and/or evidence that the existing system is racist and is seeking to uphold white supermacy.

That sounds horribly familiar!

Critical race theory (where these ideas come from) is a possible explanation but it's not the only explanation. Critical race theory is problematic in its own right because it's very difficult to critique the ideas it puts forward. Criticism, questions, non immediate acceptance is seen as racist and/or evidence that the existing system is racist and is seeking to uphold white supermacy.

I haven't seen MB's social media, just what's been posted here. So fair enough, if MB has posted more about George Floyd, etc., that suggests a bit more awareness than just What L'Oreal Did.

Hmmm, in my head asking the poster what Munroe should have said instead was kind of a rhetorical question, but I accept it didn't come across that way! But I do find it really uncomfortable that people would find it 'narcissistic' for a black person to talk about their own experience in this way.

Googling Munroe Bergdorf and George Floyd brought up no results other than her criticism of L'Oréal.

Look on Munroe's social media - they have been posting stuff about George Floyd, Ahmed Aubrey and Belly Mujinga in the last few days and weeks, and other stuff before that too.

The accusation that Munroe has only spoken out about BLM and racism in the context of their own personal issue with Loreal is totally unfair.

The histories of black people being in the US and being in the UK are very different. That difference is being blurred more and more and I think it harms race relations in the UK.

That is worth pointing out, Antibles.

This idea that there is only one correct way to think or talk about these things, and it's self-evident, is really quite toxic.

I agree with you Goosefoot. It isn't that I think the ideas themselves are necessarily bad or wrong, it's this feeling behind them that there is always one right way to think on certain topics and that questioning it makes you a heretic.

If this thread was about a white woman who was fired for calling out oppression by men And was then angry when that same employer publicly posted about support and caring for women at a time it’s ‘fashionable’, it would be unanimously in support for her

I wouldn't. If she had said what she said but substituted "all men" for all "white people" I think L'Oréal would still be entitled to sack her and I don't think it would preclude L'Oréal standing up on individual issues.

Are with Tyro
There is a difference between having absorbed harmful messages and being actively hateful.

Ideally, you'd expect people of good faith to examine their thought processes for bias.
But - that takes a lot of work. Its intellectually demanding and time consuming and also depressing.
Then you have to do it for disabilism,, sexism, classism.
You also have to work hard to live ethically with regards to the environment, consume ethically with regards to animal rights, the treatment of workers abroad and the livelihoods of workers at home.
How likely is it that this will be or can be done?
Does it matter if some people think people think mildly disparaging thoughts, ie have picked it up in the ether, as long as they are not in a position of power to act on them, like a potential employer or police officer?

I'm not making an argument really, just grumbling from the sidelines.
Sorry for being depressing.

If I said "All black teenagers are violent, knife weilding gang members" or "All Pakistani men are child abusers", then I would rightly be called "racist".
However, that is no different to MB saying "All white people are racist".
When we arrive here, we don't get a choice over our skin colour, what sex we are etc. - we just are.
This is not the US, we are nothing like the US.
Comments such as those made by MB are simply offensive and would probably increase racial tensions, drive people further apart.

On the "all white people" line: the bit that I object to is that MB is indulging the typical American habit of referring to "white people" when what they mean is "white Americans".

It's the unwillingness to accept that white Americans aren't actually representative of every light-skinned person in the world that I object to, and that there's a damned sight more to the "colonialist-shithead" aspects of European history than just the slave trade.

I agree with a PP that everyone gets a degree of racism programmed in though. Come from the culture. Happens to everyone, regardless of skin tone, just as everyone picks up the sexist mores of their culture whether they're male or female. And even if you actively reject the racist/sexist shit, it's still present in your head, just waiting to bias your thinking. Random book rec: Cordelia Fine's excellent on this.

But if everyone's picking up basic racism through the telly (thank you American media) then we need words to distinguish between that level of unconscious racism, and the overt shit. Because there is a world of difference between "picked up an unavoidable slight unconscious bias due to culture" and "proud member of the KKK".

I'm consistent on this one though; I think the same when it comes to sexism. People who declare they're not sexist at all are denying the possibility of having picked up an unconscious bias from their culture and it drives me up the wall - we all get programmed with this shit, men and women alike, and if we don't recognise that then we're never going to be able to stop doing it to the next generation.

Black Lives Matter but if they're Tories, not so much.

what do you think Munroe should have said

Wow, people telling black people what they 'should' be saying?

Don't be silly, now.

Googling Munroe Bergdorf and George Floyd brought up no results other than her criticism of L'Oréal.

But I find it astonishing that people are criticising Munroe for talking aboutthemselveson an issue that was literally aboutthem

Posters are perfectly entitled to criticise Bergdorf.