Early on, I was critical of the Black Lives Matter name and “branding” being so easily countered and dismissed by “All Lives Matter” or “White Lives Matter.” In hindsight, I’ve changed my mind and now see it as a helpful opportunity to inform and educate people over time and their initial dismissiveness is part of their education. Not to mention, it’s helpful in weeding out and exposing the racism in those who refuse to budge.
I think there’s a significant benefit to this kind of initial resistance giving way to a deeper understanding. Personally, this phenomenon has been most noticeable for me in music and film. If i wrote down a list of my all-time favorite bands or movies, most of them were NOT love-at-first-sight or love-at-first-listen. I was confused and bored and irritated by 2001, Magnolia, and Goodfellas. Pixies and The Wedding Present initially sounded too abrasive to my ears, while Belle & Sebastian was too soft and fey. But over time, these became my desert-island all-time favorites precisely BECAUSE of the way they rewired my brain and broadened my horizons.
Hopefully that horizon-broadening analogy makes sense in this context… what we think of as weaknesses in phrases like Black Lives Matter or Defund the Police, how they invite push-back and stir anger, might actually be strengths in the long run.
I know this stuff happens. I’m just saying what the theory is behind the economics-first approach- that with more economic power to boycott, it’s easier to win change. We’re kinda seeing this now with the left/center-left having the majority of consumer economic power now and winning change from corporations this way.
There’s also another part of it, which I don’t believe but I hear from leftists- they believe it’s easier to get white folks to accept things if they’re doing well economically. Conversely, in hard times, white folks concentrate hard on protecting what they have that they’re more willing to use racism if they see it as self-preservation.
There’s a third aspect as well: blacks don’t have the electoral power to win change on their own, they need allies. White progressives/socialists are mostly single-issue voters, but supportive of racial equality- they are natural allies.
I tend to think that working on economic and educational disadvantages is important, but for years (and I didn’t understand this until recently) trying to address those things without fixing the underlying issue was putting the cart before the horse. I don’t know how to fix the systemic issues with racism in this country, but if we can make some progress there, educational and economic support would have the potential to have much greater impact vs being what amounts to lip service.
I feel like the big difference is that Black Lives Matter always meant one thing to the supporters, while Defund the Police hasn’t. We’re talking about “reform or replace” here but others have sincerely called for outright abolishment.
None
4722
I immediately thought of a movie called The Wild Geese which features this phenomenon you’ve written about (and we’ve all seen many times in Hollywood about enemies becoming friends and having a stronger bond for it).
In the movie, the German actor Hardy Kruger plays, as he calls it, a “dumb Boer” who is impacted by his many conversations with the man he is tasked with helping, Julius Limbani, former president of a South African nation. It’s an interesting transformation to see in the midst of a running battle throughout the film.
(Apologies for the aside).
I guess I haven’t though about that particular moniker much, but the very direct irony of the “party of Lincoln” being pro-Confederate statues is just now occurring to me.
Yeah, when the president of the NAACP is saying…
As I’m talking to people about the concept, I’ve gotten three different explanations
…you’ve got a problem.
Nesrie
4725
I think hundreds of years of very little improvements is more than enough to prove the majority are fine with systematic racism which is why it doesn’t change, but the idea that if you raise the bottom suddenly racists won’t press their knee into the neck of a black man until he dies, even while being recording… is naive. UBI isn’t going to make someone who refuses to serve black people suddenly serve them. Hell that’s already against the law and it happens, everyday somewhere. We have people on this very site who are perfectly fine with that, having someone not serve someone else because they’re black, and they say that… knowing it will never happen to them. Giving the poor money won’t fix that either.
So no, so long as a white man and a black man are equal in all things and only the color of their skin makes a difference as to whether they are killed or incarcerated or actually get to see adulthood… we need to fix that. It is literally a matter of life or death and those people have names, and dates and a long line of police who keep getting away with it.
It’s a bad slogan if you’re looking to get as much popular support as possible. It’s a good slogan if you’re looking to make a statement, already have leverage, and are in the process negotiating the next steps. It’s like going into a salary negotiation where you know the company wants to hire you really bad so you throw out a huge number as a first step to see what you can get.
I find it a little silly that everyone is trying to justify it by saying that it really means something more nuanced than what it is saying, which leads to all kinds of very subjective interpretation. But I think it’s a fine start to really make a splash when you have the peoples’ attention and incremental changes haven’t done a damn thing to fix the problem.
Well, yes, there’s a problem but it isn’t the one you’re referring to here. The actual problem needs a vigorous debate of ideas followed by aggressive action that is appropriate for each community. Why would we expect these intense weeks of protest to be defined by careful, unified messaging? It’s a messy, glorious process but it takes time.
Nesrie
4729
I am under the impression that due to the unions, we cannot just work with these toxic full of rot districts/units which is why there are all these nuanced approaches to begin with. I mean we could just up and lie our asses off like the GOP does, but the Democrats are not known for that. It’s not really a good idea to lie your ass off while the country is experiencing large scale unrest anyway. They would find out.
With regard to everything Nesrie is saying, I read this article on Medium earlier. Powerful Stuff.
Yeah, I think that’s a good way of looking at it. It’s certainly an approach that has worked pretty well for the GOP over the years.
GOP: “We want to defund absolutely every welfare program and social safety net that has been put int place since 1914!”
Dems: “What!? Hell no!”
GOP: “Golly gosh you’re right… let’s just cut them all by, say 45% and add ridiculous prerequisites to them.”
Dems: “That’s very reasonable and moderate! Sounds like a plan!”
I think that a starting position of “boil every cop alive in a vat of synthetic Vegan lard” isn’t a horrible place to begin your bargaining from if you’re looking for real reform and change.
Hang out in Jackson, Michigan for a bit. They loudly proclaim that they are the “Home of the Republican Party” and use the Lincoln thing a lot.
Far more Republican voters are mindlessly loyal to their team and will vote for them no matter what batshit policy they propose (witness Donald Trump’s bedrock support). The vast bulk of Democratic voters aren’t, and will break step at the drop of a hat. That’s always been the problem, really.
Well, that isn’t a problem either if you recognize that it’s a strength of our more diverse and inclusive party. I’ll take being on the right side of history.
Wait, is there any evidence that Democratic voters abandon Democrats more readily because they don’t like that Democrat’s plans?
I mean, specifically, can we point to an election result where that happened?
Nesrie
4736
That poor man/bastard is going to be hunted down, doxxed, and hopefully nothing worse than that. His recount is… horrifying, as is his key advice.
It doesn’t matter how good your ideas are if you can’t get people to vote for you. If Democratic politicians stand up and advocate for boiling cops in synthetic vegan lard they’re going to lose, and this “bargaining position” is going to have no relevance as a result because the Republicans will buy all the cops new jackboots instead.
I mean, 2016? Democrats don’t lose because there aren’t enough Democrats, they lose because a bunch of them stay home if they don’t like something about the candidate. I guess I could be wrong about this but Republican turnout is comparatively quite stable as I understand it.
