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/

It's really not difficult

This is a horrible phrase used in these kinds of discussions.

As to the 'indigenous ' post. The Empire was built on colonialism. The money came from that. History people

That doesn’t change the fact that there is an indigenous population with an indigenous culture in the UK. Or that a group standing up and saying ‘we intend to destroy your culture’ isn’t going to be met with resistance - why do you think so many people voted for Brexit?

Could BLM be promoted by China/Russia/North Korea for example to dis-stablise the U.K., Europe and the USA. There are certainly some extremely unpleasant people, often white, involved in what has been going on.

Hopefully most of them have been arrested and will be taken to court and get proper sentences.

Most of the rioting is nothing to do with human rights just anarchists.

Interesting. This thread title exposes what for me is an appalling part of feminism. BLM can be defined as a Trojan horse (ie can be defined in terms of your agenda) because of this assumption there is no other way to define anything. BLM is dangerous and nasty if it doesn't exactly promote feminist ideology in the way you want it to. BLM may or may not be good for the people it claims to support but I would have thought that it deserves to be defined primarily in those terms, not how transphobic or otherwise it is. The utter indifference for other groups, regardless of what they're going through, continues to be breathtaking. This thread title implies that you're one step away from deciding if a black man's torture is playing well or badly for the feminist cause, or at least mainly interested in it in that context. And it makes me think that people this self-absorbed don't need more power. I don't recognise this as feminist and you don't speak for me. Just this once, it's not about what you're trying to make it about.

Privilege admittance does not infer 'victimhood' to those oppressed. It means that there is conscious admittance that they live their life with privilege compared to others. It's really not difficult

No it's not difficult, be it is far too simplistic, and as such makes untrue and sweeping generalisations across whole groups of human beings.

Where has anyone said they want to destroy the UK culture? U less you mean statues to slave traders?

Read previous posts.

Unfortunately you'll have a hard time convincing the majority of "indigenous" British people that it's ok to destroy a statue of Winston Churchill.

Most people probably will agree that Churchill was "racist" when you apply modern day ethics to the past. However, Churchill was still instrumental in building the Britain we live in today, the one that ethnic minority people benefit from living in. Destroying his statue is inevitably going to lead to backlash. (Not from me, by the way, I understand the frustrations of oppression).

Are any of you actually feminists or has a secret cult slipped in? If you are feminists and this is a tenant of your belief system. Well I'm not suprised you are being ignored over your Trans issues. It really is laughable seeing the prejudice on this thread

As with white people, or black people, feminists and women come in all shapes, sizes and persuasions..which is why such B&W analogies and blanket generalisations are not useful - and simply inflame conflict.

'Being conscious' extends to you too, you know. You are taking a rather hind minded , superior tone, and that never goes down well, and never will. Many on the progressive left, as it defines itself these days, have a rather unsavoury shadow - which is anything but tolerant, inclusive, egalitarian etc

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h

But don't you think it's rather curious that BLM mission statement doesn't actually mention black men?
Seeing as that's who they were set up for, they don't even mention them?

It's not about trans per-se, it's about this ridiculous "woke" ideology that ends up being a complete distraction.

I'm at the number of people who are GC here, and yet have wholeheartedly aligned with the BLM movement. Racism exists, but the hysteria and furore that are accompanying a genuine need to examine racism smacks of the same hysteria and furore that yell "stunning and brave".

@BertiesLanding you've put in to words something I have been feeling uneasy about for a while now but if you try to express this you're immediately shouted down as racist.

What is your arguement about Trans again? Is that not simple

The trans agenda/question can be approached from many different angles, and no it is not simple.

What is simple, though, is that one cannot change sex. That sex is real. What is more complex, though, is that people will disagree on what gender is; what gender means; what makes a man different from a woman; and what being a woman means and implies. That is why some women are gender critical and others are not; and why some women see all differences as socially constructed, while others, and some scientists, do not.

Really? Then choose a better one?

The suggestion was it's reductive. Disagreeing doesn't mean that people can't understand the concept.

It actually feels this is a bit of a RW cult. Probably why I never joined it. Why are you so frightened of the others you other

i'm not frightened of anyone.I'm disagreeing with some of your points and arguments, and you seem to be intolerant of that. You seem to want simplicity in areas in which it does not exist.

This thread is all over Twitter as a shining example of Mumsnet being everything-phobic, just so people are aware....

And not and example of a discussion, some sane voices, some moderate and some a bit odd. Being moderated, so anything nasty zapped.

They probably can’t quite compute that.

It actually feels this is a bit of a RW cult. Probably why I never joined it. Why are you so frightened of the others you other

Oh, so it's a "right wing cult" when someone does not agree with you.
Good luck with that. When you polarise to such an extent as you seem to want to , you will inevitably meet opposition. It is inevitable. That is the dynamic you are creating.

Most people probably will agree that Churchill was "racist" when you apply modern day ethics to the past.

Exactly. And Muhammad had a child bride and slaves, but the EU has decided you have to be all mealy-mouthed about that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v.Austria(2018)

And that's an understandable position. A couple of billion people think Muhammad was a great guy. And quite a lot of them believe you should kill or be killed to protect his name. So perhaps inflammatory statements should be stopped. Perhaps.

But if you have a war leader who held objectionable views typical of his time but who defeated one of the most evil regimes in history, then it's absolutely ok to just graffiti 'Churchill was a racist'.

Every country on earth reveres the people who made it what it was today. It's unlikely any of these people are entirely saintly. But they are revered because of what they did for their countries and because without those things the very concept of the nation would not exist.

I don't think any particular country's concept of nationhood and common ideals are necessarily universal or inherent to humanity. But they create a sense of belonging which is important to us as humanity, and for that reason alone they are very important. Clearly they are important to Muslims, and they are important to Britons as well.

I think it's fine to say 'outright racist opinions were commonplace, and racist attitudes still linger'. But it's not clear that that means we should judge everyone by attitudes of this very instant and demolish everything that doesn't fit in. That seems more like the sort of thing the Khmer Rouge would do than a modern enlightened country.