I don’t believe a top-down organized group with “strong leadership” is a requirement to achieve change. Decentralized cell phone videos will do the job eventually.
[quote=“playingwithknives, post:3, topic:120215, full:true”]but you need a high impact high visibility movement to oppose your police (who are quite frankly, terrifying), and at the moment BLM is all there is.
But this made me re-think the value of the BLM movement. As a naive believer in collaboration, I’ve always thought the “us vs. them” mentality would do more harm than good. Now I’m beginning to realize it’s a necessary middle step. It’s important to advertise the problem even if we’ll need to move beyond this movement eventually.
I’ve read stories about suspicious police killings for over a decade on libertarian blogs. No one ever mentioned the race of the victim because it wasn’t the important issue – the police state was. Obviously libertarians are invisible, so there’s never been any traction.
Black Lives Matter leverages white guilt toward a useful awareness of a problem that can affect anyone but happens to affect blacks most often. One of the weaknesses of our system of government is that it’s difficult for a large group of people with minor incentives (the public) to do something about a special interest with major incentives (the police). I’m not talking about shallow political analysis like campaign donations. It’s just hard to do anything in government without a driving force or an acute benefit. BLM is that competing special interest that has the passion and focus to make a change.
I don’t think real change happens without collaboration. It’s tough to change hearts and culture from an adversarial relationship, though I’m sure victims would be more than happy with a superficial change in behavior!
In the meantime, BLM is a necessary movement to overcome lethargy among the public about things that don’t directly affect them.