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 isn't a Trojan horse, black people are generally fed up of being treated as 2nd class citizens, and so are just happy to include/welcome anyone who will support them

I want so much for this to be true but there are threads running right now on MN that show it just isn't.

Dont want to repeat myself but there is no one group that you can say is THE BLM whether US or UK. The two groups quoted are of the same generation of politics and so come up with the same type of analysis.

Having an arguement about them is as pointless as spending hours arguing about the feminism that the Guardian or whoever foists on them.

Most of the protests are spontaneous and quite likely organised with no idea or reference to either of these tow groups claiming they are the owners of BLM's politics.

Many of them are young. They may be expressing themselves in a way they have seen through tv and social media. ie you get on the street and voice your anger. At this stage that is their focus. To demand they come up with some sort of manifesto is just totally missing the point.

And by the way even though some parts of the media and some mainstream media talk what to make it look like they dont care about coronavirus just isn't true. This is selective. Many have said they are making a conscious choice. And some are also saying (they have held signs saying this) please self isolate after demonstrating for 14 days. And I assume those who have thought and said this are also not going to go home to family where someone is shielding.

It reminds me far more of 60s politics. There were no "leaders". There were no manifestos. There were demonstrations (or hippy dippy happenings) they had a common feeling of anger against an unjust system. This or these are demonstrations against the unending reality of racism in the US and the UK, not just the police but in institutions.

And again as spontaneous gatherings it is hardly surprising they didn't liaise with the police. How many people outside of a small minority who are into political organising think this is what you have to do.

So look at the hand made signs (before the SWP or whoever move in and try and take it over) and think about the area where you live.

Politics is never going to change if we demand that it is done in the way we think it should be happening.

Also worth pointing out that the violence and confrontation with the police (in London) is just the same group who always tags along to any demo. Always stays behind long after the time everyone has dispersed so they can go through the ritual or challenging the police. These are the political parisites who want to make some point about the police but aren't honest or committed enough to organise their own demo about the police. Or worse still would organise an event and find out if they worked with the police they could have a demo and not have any aggro. But that isn't what they want. They want the spectacle of confronting the police, and then write long dramatic posts about being kettled. And yes the other key object is to scrawl graffitti.

And the problem is the media loves it. They can get dramatic pictures. Even though they know that these male adolescent antics are just opportunist "politics".

And unfortunately these silly naughtinesses are then used by those who actually oppose the object of the actually protest, to smear the protest. Hard not to think sometimes that these liberation fighters aren't in fact plants from the far right.

scontent-lhr8-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/102908933_2410279695939580_8702578814165939923_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=nUs_a2xuiD8AX_QRkG4&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr8-1.xx&_nc_tp=7&oh=36b3fd40936b472551d4f9c5a079e992&oe=5F035A0D

When saying the right words seems more important than doing the right things, I think there is a problem.

I would agree that a lot of people that go along to a protest have a fairly general desire o be a part of the larger cause, without really getting into the nitty gritty of the political cause or what the leadership is saying.

But the leadership on these things is important, because that is where the form of political change comes from, and it's the leadership that will make the difference between protests like this being a bunch of wind, or fomenting public division, or actually creating concrete change.

The gains of the civil rights movement happened around real conceptualisation of concrete and achievable political goals, based on theory rooted in real causes and problems, and a heck of a lot of building bridges across many different groups of people to find common values and causes.

I don't see that happening here, in really any of the current populist political movements - where it's happening it's the exception rather than the rule. Rather than solidarity they are creating a lot of people sniping at each other, purity politics and call out culture.

@Goosefoot I wish there was a like button for your posts. They are eye-opening.

Who said that because of lot of people feel angry enough to go out onto the street it is or has to be some sort of political structure - with "leaders".

Isn't demanding they conform to some sort of accepted way of working just a means of displacement? Why not start talking about how white people and the institutions they dominate can change.

Or are you saying white people cant or shouldn't have to do anything because appropriately appointed "leaders" have not created a list of demands which you then might agree to negotiate.

These demos are about rage.

Who and what is it that is making them angry? And are the cause of the anger going to recognise that they are the cause and start talking about how / they we can change.

That's why a I suggested a better thread would be about what change we (those of us who are white) can make?

It's not about having to conform to something. It's about doing something. If some new, effective form comes out of grass roots engagement that's exactly what is wanted, but that is not what is happening, quite the opposite.

What is the point of a bunch of angry people coming out on the street and raging around if that is all there is to it? What is the point of asking for things that are impossible, or won't help anyone, or can't achieve enough political consensus to become reality? What is it going to do?

Politics is about doing. This is just stuff that makes people feel like they are being political.

It isn't just about politics. It is about you and me. What are you going to do to make change?

Yes, that's the level it's at, really. What are you going to do to make change. A little navel gazing.

What's the problem I am supposed to be working on solving? What's the end I'm supposed to be working to achive? racism? That's a result, not a cause. What could I, or any other individual, do to change something that is systemic that is just part of how white people are? What could I possibly do differently in my personal life, share more memes on FB, go out to a protest, "educate" myself?

It's very individualistic. People need to ask themselves, who is benefitting from a "movement" like this which has no political program, which doesn't encourage or nurture a collective response.

People need to ask themselves, who is benefitting from a "movement" like this which has no political program, which doesn't encourage or nurture a collective response.

Black people. BLM is the answer, whatever question you need to ask yourself to get this answer is up to you. Unless you think that Black Lives only matter if... Or you think that your thoughts are the only ones that make a difference.

I did something this weekend. I donated half my pay check to an organisation relevant to the cause.

I did not post about BLM, even though black lives, clearly, matter.

Many friends posted endlessly; many friends marched. I wonder how many put their food budget where their mouth is?

Someone here - Beachcomber! - shared with me a piece by Catherine McKinnon which was transformative in how I want to continue from here on in.

And that is - I do not pledge myself to any male-centred movement. I will support just causes where I can, and in ways that make sense to me.

All the manifesto re trans lives means to me is that BLM, like most other social movements, chooses to priorotise men. So it's not a movement I will be pledged to.

I had this mad idea in my head that solidarity could be a one way street. I could find a way to offer it without having it reciprocated. Thankfully feminists here pointed out how much in error that is. Without reciprocation, there is no solidarity.

Anyhow. Aren't all male-centred movements trojan horses in a way, for misogyny? I doubt it's conscious, most of the time. The lovely thing for men about misogyny is that they don't have to think about it.

Not a single man I know wracked himself in guilt this weekend about BLM. It's a mind-fuck meant for women.

It’s perfectly possible to believe that black lives matter very much indeed, whilst still looking critically at the loose groupings of activists who describe themselves as Black Lives Matter.

Y’know, like it’s perfectly possible to be on the left of British politics whilst looking critically at the U.K. Labour Party.

I dont think Goosefoot was saying that at all.

IThe answer to the question "who should benefit" is obvious. Black people.

What is less obvious is how are they should benefit.

If practical changes and improvements are not proposed, Black Lives Matter is in danger of becoming an empty phrase. No one wants that.

As usual follow the money, who is funding BLM? Why the sudden focus globally over the last 10 days supported by the media, celebrities and major brands. Were we not all at risk from Covid.
I am Black and like many other black people do not support BLM mainly because it has been infiltrated by Antifa, who are deliberately exploiting the trauma caused by George Floyd's death to role play their Alinsky revolution fantasies, with no regard for the destruction or pain caused. Many black businesses have been destroyed, social housing burned to the ground. People traumatized, bricks left lying around or handed to black kids knowing that if they are caught the criminal justice system will not be fair to them. There are some powerful people who have a vested interest in keeping us divided and driving us toward the boogaloo by exploiting us emotionally.

The answer to the question "who should benefit" is obvious. Black people.
Glad that that is the consensus. Phew.

What is less obvious is how are they should benefit.
Well, it's not really about "benefit", it's just about equality atm. How we use that to benefit society will be up for debate once it is a reality.

Black people. BLM is the answer, whatever question you need to ask yourself to get this answer is up to you. Unless you think that Black Lives only matter if... Or you think that your thoughts are the only ones that make a difference.

Again the implication that not supporting a particular type of sloganeering, or identity politics, means bigotry.

Black people do not benefit from a movement that offers no program to benefit them, and can't even offer substantial thoughts about what their problems are.

People who go out on a BLM march, or share BLM memes, etc, already believe that the lives of black people matter.

The people that benefit from this are two groups: the first being the ones who are already benefiting from the structure of economic exploitation, because all of this individual figure out what it means to you business never touches their empire.

The second being the people who set themselves up as the voice of this movement, who make a career of it and write books and go on speaking tours, and often end up cheek to jowl with the first group who is very interested in keeping them close.

There is a reason beyond scoring marketing points that Amazon and Google love to blaze a BLM or a Rainbow symbol across their corporate branding, and The New York Times and The Guardian and the Democratic Party love it. They ask nothing that isn't easy for them to give.

Well, it's not really about "benefit", it's just about equality atm

What's equality called when it comes to dinner? 'Cause I am pretty sure it's not a bunch of people agreeing that lack lives matter.

Great post, Goosefoot

I swear to God this was the weekend that I finally understood when people say 'intersectionality', they don't actually mean it.

And as for being anti-capitalist? Equally hollow.

Again the implication that not supporting a particular type of sloganeering, or identity politics, means bigotry.

That is not the implication. It is simply a statement: Black Lives Matter. Do your sloganeering. Do your identity politics. Do your bigotry.

Black Lives Matter. Unless you think they don't, or only matter if.

black lives matter or Black Lives Matter?

I get that it's grammatically correct in lower case Dudu, but IRL, it warrants capitals.

There absolutely were leaders in the 1960s. And there were tons of manifestoes.

All political movements have leaders, whether you like it or not.

All mass movements start like this, with anger and amorphous ideas. Some people are hardened campaigners and some are saying "I didn't realise racism was still a thing, I had no idea".

The point will come when the movement will formulate some sort of programme and organisation, or it will ebb away because you can't just demonstrate every day indefinitely.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the establishment will be trying to identify those leaders, destroy the radical ones and boost the more conciliatory ones.

There absolutely were leaders in the 1960s. And there were tons of manifestoes.

Yes, this was my point. There were leaders, there were manifestos, there was actual concrete political work being done, where people hashed out what their interests were, how they could work with others, what the underlying mechanisms were of the problems they were facing. The protested to make concrete political demands.

That is not what has been going on with BLM (and no, that is not the same as black lives matter, for goodness sake.) BLM is not new, it is not a young organisation, and it does have a philosophy, it is absolutely immersed in Critical Race Theory. That is the basis of their analysis and their literature and their approach to politics. It doesn't fail to offer a concrete program because it hasn't had time, it can't offer one because it's analysis isn't directed in that way, and because it not only doesn't create coalitions, it destroys even the naturally occurring ones.

So long as it's the only theory allowed, there can be no real improvement, unless it's an improvement for 3% or the poor and disenfranchised, and 3% of the super-rich of the UK to be black.

I swear to God this was the weekend that I finally understood when people say 'intersectionality', they don't actually mean it.And as for being anti-capitalist? Equally hollow.

It's been interesting to me the extent to which many people seem to really think that the purpose of a political protest is just to show a kind of amorphous anger, or an vague support for a very general cause, and without even any real attempt to look careful at the topic which is supposedly being addressed.

I can't decide, is it because they don't realise that is not what caused political change before? Because they don't realise that there are specific ideological positions behind these groups that drive what they do and how they do it?

The point will come when the movement will formulate some sort of programme and organisation, or it will ebb away because you can't just demonstrate every day indefinitely.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the establishment will be trying to identify those leaders, destroy the radical ones and boost the more conciliatory ones.

I think what I am saying is that this has already happened. The conciliatory leaders have been identified, and they are now just about the only ones allowed to define the terms of the discussion.