jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (16 posts)

Black Lives Matter Shares Policy Statement

  1. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago

    I have made it clear that I support the Black Lives Matter Movement. Honestly, I thought it was mostly about making cops stop shooting black guys for being black. Now, there is a policy statement which goes way, way, way beyond that. Could anyone tell me how it came to this? The six platform demands are:

    1. End the war on black people.

    Is there a war on black people? I'm not aware of it. Police brutality applies to pretty much all. I agree that black males are at a disadvantage when dealing with police but claiming that there is a war on black people goes above and beyond reason.

    2. Reparations for past and continuing harms.

    This, in and of itself, marginalizes the movement in my opinion. 'What's in it for me' financially makes it look as if money were the goal all along.

    3. Divestment from the institutions that criminalize, cage and harm black people; and investment in the education, health and safety of black people.

    Are we to simply set aside any law in place on the books, if a black person breaks it?

    4. Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access.

    Economic justice for all makes sense, but when it comes two steps down from a demand for money, it just looks like another way of saying give us money. I'm also not willing to support a demand to reconstruct the economy so that people who aren't working toward being a part of it suddenly have ownership.

    If you want something. Work for it. Build it. Own it.

    5. Community control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us.

    So, they want to 'control laws' which impact them. I'm sure a lot of people would like to 'control laws' which might impact them, if caught. Who wouldn't? I'd like to know what laws they are talking about.

    6. Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society.

    I'm afraid we can't give someone independent political power. That is something this movement could gain for themselves if they get enough people who agree with their policies. That is how anyone else gains political power, isn't it?

    And, then they ask for black self determination? I thought they were hoping to represent the LGBT community also. Are they going to marginalize them from the get go?

    Seriously. I am so disappointed in a movement which started with meaning turning into this.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      It has turned rather badly, hasn't it?  From a reasonable request for investigation, and change as necessary, into equality of treatment into "Give me money" and "Do not make black people obey the laws everyone else does" (does this remind you of Muslims and sharia law when black communities get to make their own laws to suit themselves?).

      Unfortunate, but it should have been foreseen when the likes of Sharpton and other rabble rousers entered into the movement.

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I'm not old enough to remember when it happened, but many small towns around here received government funds to 'empower' blacks and give then ownership of land and homes. Large sums of money were appropriated. Vast tracts of land were made available. Enough land and money to build roads, homes and communities.

        What happened was graft, fraud and embezzlement by the black leaders put in charge. There may have been some successful communities built, but I am not aware of any.

        Free money, power without work to achieve it and a sense of entitlement never ends well.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          No it doesn't.  When I went to school it was all about Indians - they were given free education and living expenses, followed by startup cash for a small business.  They terrorized their dorms and received flunking grades, but could not be flunked regardless of grades.  Many started a small store, mom and pop kind of thing, but sold the merchandise without ever buying any more and the business failed.

          You're right - giving it away never works and it doesn't matter what race you are.

        2. MizBejabbers profile image91
          MizBejabbersposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          LTL, I am old enough to remember. When I was a single mom raising two boys on a minimum wage and $100 a month child support that was always behind, we lived for several years in substandard housing because we were the wrong color. Rent was skyrocketing and all housing aid lists were full. Then I went to a real estate agent hoping to get an FHA235 loan to buy a house in a decent neighborhood, and he told me that I didn't make enough money to qualify. My reply was, "you mean I'm too poor to afford a poverty level loan?." He said, "that about sums it up." He went on to tell me that I was the "wrong color" to get a loan. That was the beginning of discrimination against white people. Another agent found me a house in a semi-ghetto that she helped me buy. That was in 1980.

          But to answer some of the questions about how did it get there, a couple of weeks ago I found websites tying funding BLM to Al Quaeda and ISIS. I looked for them today, and can't find them, so I guess they were taken down because they were damaging to the movement. I did find some today urging blacks to seek out ISIS. Just google "black lives matter and ISIS" and something should show up. So, they are moving Al Sharpton out of the way and bringing in the Big Guns. Can you speak Farsi?

    2. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I think BLM is a part of social engineering to divide and conquer, and to justify more police action.  That, this backlash against police was all government induced as well as false flag operations. That, it was meant to build support for police who were getting hammered for all of the unjustified use of force.  So! Its kind of a backlash.  But, I don't see it ever deteriorating to the degree of social unrest or racial unrest that justifies martial law, because martial law requires 100's of thousands of troops with road blocks everywhere.

      However, ... well that's a different story...

      1. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I agree with your first sentence, but I think this backlash was seen as an opportunity by opportunistic people wanting the downfall of the U.S.A.

    3. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

      L & L, I would like to see the source of the "platform statement", this is way out of line and never reflected our intension for the movement at its outset.

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I'm so glad you chimed in. You don't think the source is the leaders of the movement? I guess it is like the Occupy movement. I sympathized with that, at first, and then it quickly went overboard.

        Where are the reasonable people who can lead the charge for positive change which is in the best interest of the majority of people?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          They don't get media attention (who wants to listen to reason?) so get shoved aside by those that are better at causing dissent and trouble.

          1. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I agree. There is a worrying trend in politic, I think driven by the media's continual push for clicks and ratings. The more radical, disruptive something is, the more attention it gets. So everything's getting hyped.

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

          What we needed was public attention paid to unequal treatment of blacks and other minorities in encounters with police and within the general criminal Justice system. I wanted a happy median between the desire of those who would be more than content if these issues and concerns never saw the light of day, verses some sort of revolution to attempt to address all actual and imagined racial slights and grievances.

          This is disruptive and will accomplish little except remove the focus from the original intent of the movement, while giving the rightwinger cannon fodder that he, otherwise, would not have. If this is the course the movement takes then I am opposed to it, as it will be counterproductive.

        3. colorfulone profile image89
          colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Where are they?  Shortly after the uprising in Benghazi in February, Hillary Clinton and Obama were supporting rebels in Libya in  "The Brigade for Purging Slaves, black Skin". 

          "Horrific internment camps, systematic rape, torture, lynching, and looting of businesses owned by blacks have all been reported as well. And countless sub-Saharan Africans have been forced to flee their homes in Libya to avoid the same fate." 

          "Entire cities and towns formerly occupied by blacks have been ethnically cleansed and destroyed."

          "the coastal city of about 10,000 mostly black residents has essentially been wiped off the map."

          “Tawarga no longer exists,”
          http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-new … k-genocide

          Did Hillary Clinton know this was going on?  Yes, she did.
          http://theantimedia.org/emails-prove-hi … em-anyway/

          In an email on March 27, 2011 [PDF], Blumenthal informs Secretary Clinton that a Libyan rebel commander told him that “his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting.”

          Summarily execute is a nice way of saying they are straight up killing anyone they see, who they think could be a “foreign mercenary.”

          So, you ask, how are the rebels determining who are (and are not) foreign mercenaries based merely on sight?

          The answer is based on the color of their skin. But the killings were not just cases of mistaken identity, they were part of a racial grudge connected to perceived favoritism by the Gaddafi government.

          But, of course the key reasons for war is to protect the bankers and to get the oil.  sad

    4. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I understand the disappointment. It's similar to what happened with the Tea Party, or the Bernie Sanders campaign, the Occupy Movement, or even the Trump campaign. These are movements/campaigns that started with a narrow focus like ending police violence, or smaller government, or economic equality, or dealing with immigration etc. Then as more people with different goals, ideas and motivations latch on, the narrow focus gets wider and wider, until the goals become so wide that it loses its usefulness. The goal for all these movements/ campaigns may as well be "Make things better".

      I think narrower, more focused campaigns are more effective. Like Campaign Zero. It has one single focus - ending police violence, particularly against members of the African American communities. That's it. To achieve that. They call for the following actions, which seem achievable to me. More details on each on their site.



    5. RJ Schwartz profile image92
      RJ Schwartzposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Sounds like it was always about "reparations" for injustices blacks were subjected to in the era of slavery.

  2. ahorseback profile image53
    ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

    Systematic stupid-ism's are taught  by our education system ,  "Sign up Here , become a victim today "


    Black Lives Matter  Chants ?,         "What do we want - Dead Cops "
                                                         "Pigs in a Blanket - Fry Em' Like Bacon "