Is BLM a trojan horse?

[Thingybob]

Am I the only one feeling uneasy about the BLM movement?

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)

blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Thingybob is a well-known poster.

Then argh, I wish Thingybob had taken a moment to think about this before posting. It's not a good look. (And it's ridiculous.)

Mmmmm ... I think it is more about a rethinking of what has happened. I do happen to have more connection with TRA Antifa types than I really want and I suspect that what might have happened is a 'taking over' of some elements of the BLM movement by those who have a bigger picture of Antifa ideology guiding them. That's what I've tried to say with my 'Troy, not Trojan Horse' comments. I think it is pretty similar to what has happened to some feminist and old-style LGBT orgs.

I think that's a reasonable assessment - but when you are talking about a movement, it's like equating the Poll Tax riots or the anti-cuts marches, or the Don't Invade Iraq marches, exclusively with, I dunno, Socialist Worker. The SWP made every effort to dominate the narrative, dominate the visuals (all those placards with SWP slogans on them, handed out in their tens of thousands who had no bloody idea who the SWP were but who wanted a placard) and yet in the end the SWP were a bunch of useless, controlling, cult-like rape-apologists (and outright rapists) who when you look a bit more closely, you would naturally run from. You wouldn't post "is the antiwar movement a trojan horse for rapists?" You might post "jesus fuck, look at these fucking rape-apologists jumping on the bandwaggon, and people not realising how awful they are".

....and this really isn't a perfect analogy, I know, or even a very good one. But I am trying to get across that dismissing an entire movement because one of the many, many organisations involved has - for the moment - bowed down to the current misogyny and homophobia of the TRAs, in the entirely mistaken belief that they are somehow being progressive by doing so, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I totally get you Annie - I think that the Trojan Horse analogy was the wrong one - at the same time, I do worry about Antifa's success in taking over so many social movements. I also used to worry about the SWP and agree with your assessment of them. In fact, it would not surprise me if there was crossover membership amongst older male members.

I'm an hour into listening to this. I'm impressed so far by the thoughtful and articulate viewpoints throughout the discussions, including any disagreements.

Is anyone from the BLM movement camp able to articulate in a similar manner what is wrong or incorrect about the points being made in the video? It would be great to see a genuine and intellectual dialogue between the differing viewpoints.

I know I'm being annoying in posting the video repeatedly, and I get that it's over an hour long and not everyone has the time, but it's rare to stumble on an engaging discussion like the one in the video. It's given me a lot of food for thought.

Colour blindness is not a thing

This comment would suggest, that, you believe racism to be inevitable, then...because people will always note and judge others purely or primarily on the basis of their skin colour or other racial features.

If colour blindness can never be "a thing" - what is your solution to the problems you see? You see, what I see is someone making judgments on the basis of skin colour alone. Isn't that the main definition of racism.

That this has effectively squashed any oxygen out of feminist discussion on MN. And that you clearly have supporters who would walk hand in hand with Tommy Robinson

Oxygen implies being able to breathe freely...which in the context of discussion implies an airing of various views, experiences and a discussion as to objectives and solutions to various problems or conflicts. You seem not to want that. you seem to be seeking compliance with your particular view; and in doing that you are making hyperbolic and ridiculous accusations in order to back up your own prejudices.

....and this really isn't a perfect analogy, I know, or even a very good one. But I am trying to get across that dismissing an entire movement because one of the many, many organisations involved has - for the moment - bowed down to the current misogyny and homophobia of the TRAs, in the entirely mistaken belief that they are somehow being progressive by doing so, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't know - I feel like this is in the end worrying about what onlookers will think of the discussion. Which does worry me, but I think it is a dead end, socially, politically, and morally.
Most posters have at least begun by saying they didn't think the metaphor was quite right, but then looking in more detail about what might be behind the discomfit expressed in the OP, or what they thought would be a more accurate way to describe it. And I would say there are, even among hose who agreed that there was some sort of problem with the movement, some disagreement or different ways of thinking about that.
Apart from people throwing around accusations without engaging it's really been a good discussion with some interesting ideas and I think, at least for me, it's expanded the field of my thinking and also allowed me to articulate my thoughts a bit better. Plus I really quite enjoyed the video Nonnymouse posted, even though the participants weren't necessarily from the same place on the political spectrum as I am.

This is going back to my post late last night and some responses to it.

Yes in the 60s there were some groups who formulated ideas and even had manifestos. But by and large the change that happened was because individuals chose to start living a different life. Some gave up on it and went back to conformity and some didn't.

And yet again, BLM is not trade marked. In response to a group calling itself BLM UK saying they did not support public protests individuals spontaneously started organising events through facebook etc..

So instead of sitting on the sidelines sniping at those who are organising, it might be more progressive to think how gender critical feminists could be part of the movement for change.

The situation with Antifa in the US is not the same as happening hear.

But for someone to say unless and until they are provided with a written manifesto that they are not going to take part or even examine themselves, as Goosefoot has said, just illustrates what BLM is about. It isn't just about institutional racism in the police but in all of us and starting to make change. That is why it is 60s politics. ie the personal is political.

Who at this point in history would want to be remembered as the one who said until there is a clear agenda I am not going to stand against racism.

And if anyone watched In Limbo last nights thinks that somehow the UK is better than the US is just mistaken. But perhaps an indication of who little some of us feel we need to be bothered is that in telly addicts section only about 10 mumsnetters seem to have watched it. British history isn't just the overt example of for instance Coulston but the institutions we turn a blind eye to, that run our country.

stumbledin the word racist and racism are very strong words. They mean very specific things with a specific connotation. We seem to be living in an era where such labels, which were once very important words, are thrown around with abandon, thereby watering down the

Bah! Pressed post too soon.

Take two...

I don’t think it is a case of until there is a clear agenda I am not going to stand up to racism, it is a case of if there were a clearer agenda I could stand up to racism more effectively.

If somebody asked me what needed to be accomplished to reduce misogyny, I could immediately start saying things right now that could be done to change things for women. None of them involve initially going on about male privilege, saying I’m not going to educate you, it’s all systemic or whatever.

Likewise I have recently watched the Netflix documentary about the prison system and black people in the US. There were people stating what the problems are and how that system can be changed. The call in the US for police defunding in mental health cases - that seems an practical idea and we already do many of the things requested through defunding in the U.K. The video shared on here talking about mentoring schemes - another practical step forward.

If black people want to say it is not my job to educate, fine. But plenty of people supporting the current movement aren’t black. But the answers they are giving is read this book etc. If some white people are so well educated on this (having social science degrees etc) are they not able to summarise the main important points and what action should be taken? If someone is educated they should understand something well enough to explain in their own words. Whenever someone says you must read this book, the point often seems to be to indoctrinate rather than to educate.

@NonnyMouse1337

stumbledin the word racist and racism are very strong words. They mean very specific things with a specific connotation. We seem to be living in an era where such labels, which were once very important words, are thrown around with abandon, thereby watering down the

thereby watering down how serious such a term is.

I really don't think it's helpful to suggest that everyone is a racist deep down inside. Most people don't have time for political analysis and intellectual thinking, and they aren't going around thinking of ways they can be racist today. They want to get on with their life, have a decent job and a good future for their children. And they usually wish the same for other people as well.

It's important to remember historical events and people in their unvarnished truth. There is certainly more than can be done to raise awareness and acceptance of the role things like slavery and prejudice played in shaping our societies and economies.

I disagree with the popular narrative that we all have to be turning ourselves inside out and repent our 'sins', when there's no actual concrete definition of what these racist sins are.

Would you be interested in watching the video that I posted above and sharing your thoughts on it?

Whenever someone says you must read this book, the point often seems to be to indoctrinate rather than to educate

To indoctrinate or to dismiss? Because realistically, a lot of adults don't read that much, especially 'serious' books and non-fiction. And if every campaign for change gives you a reading list before you can join the debate, where would you find the time? I guess the actual effect is a lot of people just won't engage.

Yes, after posting that I was thinking about the number of people I know aren’t actually able to read a book.

Someone asked about the mechanism for systematic racism a while back. I guess one theory is that it is maintained by subconscious racism, transmitted between people by their upbringing, the media they consume, etc. Maybe the "educate yourself" is a plea to white people to try to reduce unconscious bias, which cumulatively adds up to produce structural racism.

Which then leads to the question, does it work? What are effective means of reducing implicit bias?

There isn’t anything subconscious or unconscious about holding someone for 8 minutes so that they suffocate. It’s just torture.

There isn’t anything subconscious or unconscious about putting a minor who hasn’t been found guilty in prison for three years. It is a human rights abuse.

Systemic and structural oppression is largely a consequence of institutions and individuals who are in positions of power who stand to directly benefit financially and personally from someone else’s misery. It is not some accidental subconscious problem that is going to be dealt with by sixteen year old white girls with no power reading White Fragility and posting black screens on Instagram.

@stripesgalore In the UK then, is there structural racial oppression, that is not accidental? What is it and who benefits?

I would not consider myself to be knowledgeable about race in the way I am about sex, but my understanding would be as follows.

Most essential work is done by overlapping groups of women, the poor and people of colour. People in positions of power and privilege make enormous amounts of money from exploiting these groups and treat them to greater or lesser degrees as expendable.

Large numbers of people still live in slavery and extreme poverty for the benefit of wealthy and corrupt institutions that protect wealth.

We can see for example, how large numbers of essential workers have become hospitalised in excess of the rates for nurses, because they were denied PPE despite working with the public. This disproportionately impacted BAME people. That is an example of systemic racism - the government and large employers denying people’s basic safety while still paying out huge sums to shareholders.

There may be such a thing as unconscious racism, but I certainly don’t think there is such a thing as unconscious sexism. It is done on purpose.

This thread has been so interesting to read and I want to thank all the posters for supplying interesting comments and links. People were all conforming to the one narrative on my social media feed, and how there was peer pressure to pledge allegiance to BLM or else be condemned as a racist. The whole thing was making me feel very uneasy, and for a whitey that means doubting yourself and asking if you really are a racist if you don't want to go along with the ideology being put forth (which I think is a very intentional and manipulative technique being pushed by those with an ideological rather than anti-racist agenda). I can now see anti-racism as a sentiment and the identity politics rooted ideology being pushed are two entirely different things.

I use social media and saw many people I follow posting the black squares as well as many messages very dictatorial in tone which told white people that silence is compliance, but at the same time you will never know enough to ever comment, and you must read this list of books etc etc. I'm someone who has always been angered and sickened by racism, but was very reluctant to follow the social media trend without reading the small print (as another poster put it) first, due to what I saw of the identity politics agenda caught up with with the BLM movement. I then had a couple of my followers bullying me into posting a black square, accusing me of being a racist for not doing so (I don't have a massive following, but there are various followers I've collected along the way who don't know me personally). It's deeply insulting and frankly fills me with rage that someone would call me racist without knowing anything about my views or how I live my life, because I won't go along with a social media trend that originated from a corporation (Atlantic records) and certainly does not convince me to comply. Divisive, dictatorial shaming techniques such as this are the usual employ of the woke crowd, that you have to show complete and utter compliance without question or else you must be a racist. It can only have negative effects. It either means that people's compliance is very superficial, driven by guilt, or on the other hand it will drive those people who won't be dictated to away. I'm so glad to read this thread, which has given me some resources from black scholars who don't conform to the critical race theory view (which I am also just learning about now here). Social media has been full of posts saying that we need to use this time to 'amplify melanated voices' - but I'm pretty sure they don't mean those who have been linked here! Hypocritical in the extreme, to present black people as a monolith all with the same views. I do also intend to read some of the resources suggested on my social media feed to gain a balanced view. I doubt those going along with the crowd will attempt to do the same. Coming back to the title of the thread (which I do think is a bit unfortunate, but I get the point) the techniques I've mentioned are brainwashing, as with the TWAW mantra. I think the vast majority of people going on the marches simply want to voice their support for their black communities and outrage at the death of George Floyd, and good for them, but certain influencers guilt tripping their followers into compliance in the way they have, (and indeed with trans rights activism) reminds me only of psychological warfare.

But for someone to say unless and until they are provided with a written manifesto that they are not going to take part or even examine themselves, as Goosefoot has said, just illustrates what BLM is about. It isn't just about institutional racism in the police but in all of us and starting to make change. That is why it is 60s politics. ie the personal is political.

Ah, no, I haven't said anything like that. I "look into" myself every day as a discipline, and my commitment to how I behave ad where I place my energy and how I love people is based on a conviction about the universality and dignity and worth of people, no matter what category they slot into, whether I like them or agree with the, and even whether the are good people or objectively horrible. The assumption that people don't do this because unless a bunch of right-on people tell them they need to check their privilege is just presumption.

What I've said is that protests that are looking for political change need to have a concrete focus. And that requires a real understanding of the problem.

The problem that BLM has is that it not only doesn't have that understanding, it is explicitly based on a theory that does not and cannot create such an understanding, it prevents such an understanding. It's a race essentialist understanding as well which is dangerous, and racist in the most literal sense of the word. More than that, it behaves this way because it's meant to, because it is designed to protect power, it's meant to avoid looking at real mechanisms and it's meant to fracture solidarity, it' meant to be bread and circuses.

I'm sorry, some sort of vague look into yourself justification does not cut it as a response or justify saying that people who don't hop right on the train must be bigots, or lack self-reflection.

Colour blindness is not a thing.

Sex blindness is not a thing. Yet it suits certain individuals and certain groups to pretend that it is. What does that achieve?

It’s a bit like when the Tories tried to solve child poverty in the U.K. by changing the way the poverty line is calculated. Looked good on paper but did nothing for the kids being fed out of charity food banks.

Insisting biological sex is a made up, colonial concept doesn’t stop baby girls being murdered for having the audacity to be born female, it just makes it harder to talk about and harder to document and harder to action against.

I’m thoroughly bored of people who claim to be progressive doing the work of male supremacy. Massive blind spot, sexism, isn’t it?

Stripesgalore

Look, your thoughts there are fine as far as they go, but there are some assumptions there that are really important and require unpacking.

The first one being, how and why is it that you separate out the poor and people of colour? How is it that we have a group called PoC anyway, and why are they poor? Is there something different required to help them, compared to the poor who are white?

In terms of the BLM cause, police violence, the relevant question might be, are blacks so often targeted because they are black, or because they are more likely to be poor? Because the solutions to those two problems might be very very different.