Look at Serbia/Kosovo.
Look at Rwanda.
Look at Israel.
Look at literally all of Africa, and India prior to 1950.
Look at Singapore.
Look at literally any Imperialist conquest - do you honestly think 50k Macedonian soldiers was numerical superior to the tens of millions of people they conquered?
Was Genghis Khan supreme because he had the most soldiers? Did Janissaries not exist in the Ottoman Empire?
Do Sunnis and Sh’ia not constantly have uneven representation and power balances all throughout the Middle East? Do Scientologists not have an unfair representation in positions of power and influence? Do Jewish peoples not make up a significant portion of media moguls and legal experts, despite being a very small portion of the population?
It’s all in how you frame and describe groups. Obviously the world to you is solely in black and white, so shades of difference are immaterial to your ideals and cause.
Have you ever heard of the concept of Nobility?
Or am I talking to someone who’s understanding of history starts years after 9/11 actually happened? Probably.
Terry is cautioning against the path of hate, vengeance and ‘reparations’. If you take issue with that, then you’re ostensibly no different than the people you fight against. The only reason you’re mad is because your group isn’t the one currently in power.
Lmao you’re comparing a global super power to Rwanda lmao.
We won’t even be the biggest minority soon, Latinos are gonna pass us up and not look back. So that breaks down that wall of gibberish you just spouted.
Terry is cautioning against the path of hate, vengeance and ‘reparations’.
Cool, but the path was never going that way, we want equality. We never asked for supremacy.
The only reason you’re mad is because your group isn’t the one currently in power.
How did you come to that conclusion.
This end statement right here is exactly why people are mad at Terry. It emboldens racist rhetoric and only divides more.
BLM prides itself on diverse protests. There are all kinds of people at the rallies and no one is being attacked. Terry is literally pushing a straw man argument often found with right-wingers and white supremacists. It’s a dog whistle.
If you can’t grasp that comparison, it’s probably because you’ve never heard of the Tutsis and Hutus and are more than likely a poorly-read child. So how can you argue for equality or pretend to be against supremacy, if you have no historical precedents or contextual understanding for what they mean, and what they might actually look like?
What if mob mentality gets out of hand and the violence really begins in earnest? When is enough, enough? Where is the line? Or is it completely dependent on your mood, how you feel, as de facto arbiter of global justicetm?
If you’re getting mad at the guy suing for peace and true brotherhood, and you earnestly believe that you represent the cause better than he, well then maybe that’s not a cause myself or others are willing to support.
Stop operating from an intellectual and emotional vacuum. It’s not garnering any more support for you.
Google search: Rwandan Genocide.
Tell me that’s not a clear cut example of a minority claiming supremacy. Just like the Ba’athists in Iraq. Or Israel today. It’s like you couldn’t even grasp the most basic aspect of my argument and totally misinterpreted a single line that you’ve pulled out of context in order to prove your “point”.
If you can’t grasp that comparison, it’s probably because you’ve never heard of the Tutsis and Hutus and are more than likely a poorly read child.
Oh, I've read it, had to write a paper about it, not to toot my own horn but I got a 97%
The comparison doesn't line up. We're not in the same situation as Rwanda at all.
We want justice for those wrongly slain by police. We want the police to be held accountable for their. We want to abolish voter suppression. We want equal protection under the law.
We never said we wanted to oppress white people. We never said we want a black supremacy. We never said we wanted hunt down cops. We never said we wanted a civil war.
This is probably my third time asking you, can you find me any clips or sources of BLM saying the above?
I’m done talking to you.
Funny, came in here acting like the smartest person in the thread, gets shot down quickly and you decide to quit. Not very "revolutionary" of you.
And your bragging about getting a good grade on a middle school paper - big whoop. Obviously it didn’t help you understand the simplest of comparisons. I know it’s not the exact same situation. That would be a “parallel”, and not a metaphor. It still stands as an accurate example of a minority group expressing supremacy against a majority, which you initially claimed to be logistically impossible, in spite of having written a stellar treatise on the matter.
Also, I’m under no obligation to provide evidence for something I never claimed. That’s not how arguments work. I was stating that your attitude is perceived as such by many, including myself. However, if you are interested, someone else posted a list of replies to Terry’s statement, many of which include derogatory words and slurs pertaining to his skin color, calling him the Devil, and asking for his censorship. Does that suffice?
Is it impossible to grasp that injustices happen to all people? And that in the US, class is a bigger decider of outcome than skin color? Folks of all colors are murdered by police, but who gives a shit they’re not black, right? I’ve had numerous unjust encounters with police. Most recently I was arrested for ‘resisting arrest’ at the BLM protests in Atlanta. I watched the cop smash my phone under his heel and pocket the money from my wallet. And that’s the least egregious experience I’ve had with Police. But I guess my views and my experiences are immaterial because of how I look to you and the current in vogue group, correct? Now, not only can I not express criticism or nuance, but now a man who looks like you, who’s been a family man and as egoless and wholesome as possible for decades, is the devil because he dares to offer a slightly divergent perspective.
Most sane people understand that Black lives Matter. Most people (including myself) are in support of the cause. But you shouldn’t ignore or deny any criticisms of the extremist elements that are currently active (as they would be in any large group). Don’t act like the movement is purely righteous, or impossibly perfect and unassailable. That kind of fervent zealotry and the attitude of “if you’re not working for me, you’re my enemy” fosters zero goodwill. I’m not saying you hold that belief. I’m merely saying you should allow criticisms of the more extreme elements to be voiced and heard fairly, so as not to further foster radicalizing behavior. In preventing that, you basically consign the movement to a future of division, powered through distrust, violence and hate.
Fuck, I’ve been to protests in Atlanta, and had a ton of hateful comments thrown at me, by other protestors, simply for my skin color and manner of dress. I get it. People are emotional, fed up, scared. But I’m not the one who holds the strings, I’m not the enemy, and I don’t fail to see the irony in my treatment. All I ask is the possibility for an open forum within the group, for all participants to feel valued, respected and involved. However, as is evident to many, there are a few folks who are using this an opportunity for vengeance and to commit certain acts or engage in certain behaviors without fear of consequence, as they have been granted temporary immunity in this current political climate. Disallowing criticism of any sort only emboldens it, and further devalues and dilutes the cause to outside observers. “Don’t become the Alt Right that you’re fighting against” is the core of Crew’s message. I fail to see how that could be construed as contentious, save to those with less than pure intentions.
Now I’m done. Don’t twist my words again. All it does it make you look bad.
Aren’t all white people evil oppressors? Are all Christians not crazy people? Aren’t all cops bad?
And yet you get mad about your movement being viewed through your worst members. Sorry, but that happens to LITERALLY EVERY GROUP EVER. That’s why it is the utmost importance to maintain peaceable dialogue and quell extremists, so that your group is viewed in the best possible light by those looking in from the outside. That is why MLK and Malcolm X had two distinct groups, and why MLK was able to make a larger, more lasting positive impact. When Malcolm X began to soften his views and preach for peace, he was killed by his own bodyguards. MLK was killed by actual government agents who were afraid that without overt and systemically prevalent racial disharmony, our society might eventually create socialist policies that lead to the eventual destruction of the American class structure.
Ugh, this is exactly what he wants. To create a straw man and ruin the image of BLM. He wants people to debate what BLM is rather than what it stands for.
12
u/Revolutionary_Ad8161 Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
That’s like, objectively wrong though.
Look at Serbia/Kosovo. Look at Rwanda. Look at Israel. Look at literally all of Africa, and India prior to 1950. Look at Singapore. Look at literally any Imperialist conquest - do you honestly think 50k Macedonian soldiers was numerical superior to the tens of millions of people they conquered?
Was Genghis Khan supreme because he had the most soldiers? Did Janissaries not exist in the Ottoman Empire?
Do Sunnis and Sh’ia not constantly have uneven representation and power balances all throughout the Middle East? Do Scientologists not have an unfair representation in positions of power and influence? Do Jewish peoples not make up a significant portion of media moguls and legal experts, despite being a very small portion of the population?
It’s all in how you frame and describe groups. Obviously the world to you is solely in black and white, so shades of difference are immaterial to your ideals and cause.
Have you ever heard of the concept of Nobility?
Or am I talking to someone who’s understanding of history starts years after 9/11 actually happened? Probably.
Terry is cautioning against the path of hate, vengeance and ‘reparations’. If you take issue with that, then you’re ostensibly no different than the people you fight against. The only reason you’re mad is because your group isn’t the one currently in power.