International News Black Lives Matter

[chuckbert]

Steering away from divisive language

I don’t think that article useddivisive language. It used inclusive language. What you’re asking for isn’t appeasement of everyone, it is appeasement of one side. That is divisive and disempowering.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Read the statement in its entirety for it's proper context. I don't see how anyone but the thinnest skinned, and those wishing to weaponise it for their own cause, could even begin to see this as anything other than a statement of intent to give everyone equal access to resources.

The concept of it now being the Dems job to appease everyone is interesting too. I am not sure how you can arrive at that conclusion when you have (mostly) white blokes with guns apparently prepared to use any force necessary to promote their cause and their agenda. I think @chuckbert has hit the nail on the head here - it is divisive, it is disempowering. I don't remember Trump saying he would appease Antifa/BLM, so why Biden with the MAGAloons? Is it because they have more guns and IEDs and have already shown they are prepared to storm Federal buildings, so are a tangible threat to National Security in the US?

 

[bashamwonderland]

Read the statement in its entirety for it's proper context. I don't see how anyone but the thinnest skinned, and those wishing to weaponise it for their own cause, could even begin to see this as anything other than a statement of intent to give everyone equal access to resources.

The concept of it now being the Dems job to appease everyone is interesting too. I am not sure how you can arrive at that conclusion when you have (mostly) white blokes with guns apparently prepared to use any force necessary to promote their cause and their agenda. I think @chuckbert has hit the nail on the head here - it is divisive, it is disempowering. I don't remember Trump saying he would appease Antifa/BLM, so why Biden with the MAGAloons? Is it because they have more guns and IEDs and have already shown they are prepared to storm Federal buildings, so are a tangible threat to National Security in the US?

Why are you holding Joe Biden up to the low standards set by Trump? Why is it OK for him to fail to bring both sides together just because Trump didn't?

We should be expecting reconciliation and collaboration from the leader of the free world. One president failing to do that does not legitimise the next one doing the same.

Response to your last question is simply "yes". There is a tangible and violent threat to democracy in the US and when you say you will be prioritising all groups but the group causing that threat, it seems like an escalation.

Ultimately reconciliation and inclusion was the key to quelling violence at the end of the Troubles and I think JB would do well to engage a similar approach here.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Oh lord.........prioritising those groups.....to. make. sure. they. have. equal. access.

IE - put them on a level footing with those that already have that level of access. That IS an act of reconciliation! He is practically saying we will reconcile the inherent difference in availability of resources!

Some have decided to shout "no fair" and it just sounds like the spoilt kid not getting his way in the playground when asked to share.

Such as probably the vast vast majority of those who stormed the Capitol last week, who have now through their actions crossed a line into domestic terrorism. I mean they could afford to own all that military grade equipment and also fly from all corners of the US to take part - -they can't really be the forgotten, left behind ones in American society....can they??

Whilst I agree that there are an awful lot of people who may (wrongly) feel that they are disenfranchised, who may (wrongly) feel that Murca is now in the grips of the far left, who now (wrongly) feel that their hard won freedoms and liberties are being sold down the river by the (wrongly labelled) marxist left, there is no way on this earth that any administration should ever seek to appease a group who are threatening to shoot/blow the place up if they don't get their way.

But - I will give you this, Biden HAS to reach out to those who think they have a bad deal (but really, really don't), those that Trump has nurtured so tenderly over the last few years into thinking that their lot is a bad one, who think they are badly treated, the ones who are discontented. He has to find a way of making them realise they are fortunate and they have so much opportunity, they are by and large lucky to be born into the country they call home, that the communities in that country need to act like communities and come together to create a better place . . .they have more that unties them than divdes them etc etc....and there are an awful lot of people who need to realise they have been fed an awful lot of MAGA horseshit over the last few years!

 

[bashamwonderland]

Oh lord.........prioritising those groups.....to. make. sure. they. have. equal. access.

IE - put them on a level footing with those that already have that level of access. That IS an act of reconciliation! He is practically saying we will reconcile the inherent difference in availability of resources!

Some have decided to shout "no fair" and it just sounds like the spoilt kid not getting his way in the playground when asked to share.

Such as probably the vast vast majority of those who stormed the Capitol last week, who have now through their actions crossed a line into domestic terrorism. I mean they could afford to own all that military grade equipment and also fly from all corners of the US to take part - -they can't really be the forgotten, left behind ones in American society....can they??

Whilst I agree that there are an awful lot of people who may (wrongly) feel that they are disenfranchised, who may (wrongly) feel that Murca is now in the grips of the far left, who now (wrongly) feel that their hard won freedoms and liberties are being sold down the river by the (wrongly labelled) marxist left, there is no way on this earth that any administration should ever seek to appease a group who are threatening to shoot/blow the place up if they don't get their way.

But - I will give you this, Biden HAS to reach out to those who think they have a bad deal (but really, really don't), those that Trump has nurtured so tenderly over the last few years into thinking that their lot is a bad one, who think they are badly treated, the ones who are discontented. He has to find a way of making them realise they are fortunate and they have so much opportunity, they are by and large lucky to be born into the country they call home, that the communities in that country need to act like communities and come together to create a better place . . .they have more that unties them than divdes them etc etc....and there are an awful lot of people who need to realise they have been fed an awful lot of MAGA horseshit over the last few years!

You say they "wrongly" feel disenfranchised but that isn't really for you to say with any authority. What makes you say that? The US contains tens of millions of young men (be they white or black) who have virtually nothing. No healthcare, no insurance, no pension, no job, no benefits, a trailer or tiny flat to live in. Some have huge student debts they'll never repay.

So how can you possibly say these people "already have that level of access"... Access to what? Around 10% of white US citizens are in poverty. That's compared to around 15% for Hispanics, 18% for black people and 7% for Asians.

I tried to find some data on this and I went to Politifact, a US fact checking site. In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available (allegedly), "66% of people living in poverty were white, including people of Hispanic origin.

But that number drops to 42% — under the official poverty measure — when people of Hispanic origin are omitted".

You might be wondering what my point is. My point is that there are a lot of angry people out there (in the region of 25,000,000 US citizens) who look at the world around them and see no opportunity, no beneficial treatment and no "privilege". Some are so angry that they do stupid things like storm government buildings. I can't imagine what it is like for those same people to then hear a speech from the incoming US president who says he will be prioritising black, hispanic and female owned businesses as part of his regime. That's not a conciliatory message. It's not inclusive. It's telling millions who have nothing that they will continue to have nothing as those around them will be prioritised because, they happen to have different skin or lack a penis.

I thought the idea was to move past this type of categorisation. But maybe not.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I think a fair proportion of those who think it was right to storm the Capitol and all those who took part in it are wrong to feel disenfranchsied, yes.

I'm not disputing the fact that USA is a country of huge disparity, of course it is. But that is not what this is about. This is about (as you allude to) minority business owners getting the same access as white business owners, is it not? It is about everybody having the same access to everything they should be entitled to. It is not about taking anything away from anyone.

I obviously can't say this with any great certainty, but I would think those most triggered by this are those who feel (wrongly) that their way of life is under threat by this move and not those whose lives are so s**t (regardless of colour or penis ownership) that they really wouldn't wish them on anybody.

The fact that there is such grinding poverty in the Worlds richest nation only goes to show that the disparity is systemic and needs addressing EQUALLY - I would think a first step at giving people equal access to things they should already be entitled to is a positive first step.

It does not detract from the fact that Trump did diddly squat about it in his time. He could've made a difference to those that have nothing and live in abject poverty - he didn't. Instead he helped to make people feel even more s**t about their lot and suggest some people/groups for them to blame for it too (be they Chinese, Mexican "shithole" countries).

I have a funny feeling that Biden will end up doing more for them than the outgoing administration, starting with healthcare and action on Covid. TIme will tell I guess and actions speak louder than words.

 

[Oslernorth]

Is a statue a "celebration" ? Rhodes et al actually did a lot of good for many people at the time so is it not just an acknowledgement?

Rhodes’s views were also within the moral parameters of the time. So there wouldn’t have been a question mark over him when it was built.
Obviously in hindsight of the horrors of the 20th century we now know how wrong those views were.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

Did you intentionally miss the words "equal

Oh lord.........prioritising those groups.....to. make. sure. they. have. equal. access.

IE - put them on a level footing with those that already have that level of access. That IS an act of reconciliation! He is practically saying we will reconcile the inherent difference in availability of resources!

Some have decided to shout "no fair" and it just sounds like the spoilt kid not getting his way in the playground when asked to share.

Such as probably the vast vast majority of those who stormed the Capitol last week, who have now through their actions crossed a line into domestic terrorism. I mean they could afford to own all that military grade equipment and also fly from all corners of the US to take part - -they can't really be the forgotten, left behind ones in American society....can they??

Whilst I agree that there are an awful lot of people who may (wrongly) feel that they are disenfranchised, who may (wrongly) feel that Murca is now in the grips of the far left, who now (wrongly) feel that their hard won freedoms and liberties are being sold down the river by the (wrongly labelled) marxist left, there is no way on this earth that any administration should ever seek to appease a group who are threatening to shoot/blow the place up if they don't get their way.

But - I will give you this, Biden HAS to reach out to those who think they have a bad deal (but really, really don't), those that Trump has nurtured so tenderly over the last few years into thinking that their lot is a bad one, who think they are badly treated, the ones who are discontented. He has to find a way of making them realise they are fortunate and they have so much opportunity, they are by and large lucky to be born into the country they call home, that the communities in that country need to act like communities and come together to create a better place . . .they have more that unties them than divdes them etc etc....and there are an awful lot of people who need to realise they have been fed an awful lot of MAGA horseshit over the last few years!

Sheik, if you want people to have equal access, you should not use the word "prioritise", all that is needed to be said is "we will ensure equal access for all American citizens"

Please explain to me why a poor white business owner, would have better access that a rich latino business owner, or why a female business owner has worse access than a male business owner.

It's the Dems playing identity politics to try and secure themselves as 'the party of minorities', but you already knew that, really. I wonder what your reaction would have been if they said they were going to prioritise white people to ensure equal access.

 

[m]

It stuns me that anyone who isn't a racist can take so much offence at those words.

 

[Scotchegg]

Sheik, if you want people to have equal access, you should not use the word "prioritise", all that is needed to be said is "we will ensure equal access for all American citizens"

People can legitimately prioritise the most disaffected to create equality.

I want to ensure that all kids are fed equally, but I'll prioritise the starving kids first.

I want to ensure that everyone has equal access to the lifeboats, but will prioritise those who are drowning first.

I want to ensure that we grow our economy as a nation, through investing in business. I want to ensure that every business can be rebuilt and will prioritise small business and those of minority groups.

All perfectly reasonable!!!

 

[bashamwonderland]

People can legitimately prioritise the most disaffected to create equality.

I want to ensure that all kids are fed equally, but I'll prioritise the starving kids first.

I want to ensure that everyone has equal access to the lifeboats, but will prioritise those who are drowning first.

I want to ensure that we grow our economy as a nation, through investing in business. I want to ensure that every business can be rebuilt and will prioritise small business and those of minority groups.

All perfectly reasonable!!!

To hold that opinion though you have to have the very basic (and frankly, wrong) opinion that white people don't suffer from those inequalities. Look at the poverty statistics in my earlier post and you will see that at the bottom end of society white Americans are facing the same problems as other minority groups. And men are just as likely to be affected by poverty as women.

By your own argument it is Asian Americans who have it best - only 7% of them live in poverty. So Joe Biden's speech should have been prioritising everyone but Asian Americans.

Even better, he could just say that he is going to prioritize "all small business owners" so he can encompass everyone who is likely to be struggling at the lower end of society.

It takes such a basic worldview to think white people have an unrivalled access to success. Your "I want to ensure" paragraphs are so pointless that they don't actually touch on the real issues in question. Nobody is disagreeing with the very simple concept of feeding starving people and saving drowning people - it's the degree to which you are saying white people aren't drowning or starving which is where the issue lies.

The statistics for those at the bottom of society simply do not support your position.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

It stuns me that anyone who isn't a racist can take so much offence at those words.

1. I haven't taken offence. I just think its an absolutely stupid statement. No one has explained to me why they need to prioritise ethnic minorities business owners need to be prioritised over white men. All businesses have suffered under covid. Race is literally irrelevant and doesn't need to be brought into it

2. It "stuns me" people care so much about the race of business owners. It really doesn't matter. Initiatives like black pound day are mental, who honestly cares what race a business owner is? I thought society had moved on

3. It really isn't just me who thought that tweet was ludicrous. Obviously everyone with that opinion is a "racist" in your book.

4. Dont imply other people are racists just because you disagree with their take on something they've said.

 

[ttg17]

To hold that opinion though you have to have the very basic (and frankly, wrong) opinion that white people don't suffer from those inequalities. Look at the poverty statistics in my earlier post and you will see that at the bottom end of society white Americans are facing the same problems as other minority groups. And men are just as likely to be affected by poverty as women.

By your own argument it is Asian Americans who have it best - only 7% of them live in poverty. So Joe Biden's speech should have been prioritising everyone but Asian Americans.

Even better, he could just say that he is going to prioritize "all small business owners" so he can encompass everyone who is likely to be struggling at the lower end of society.

It takes such a basic worldview to think white people have an unrivalled access to success. Your "I want to ensure" paragraphs are so pointless that they don't actually touch on the real issues in question. Nobody is disagreeing with the very simple concept of feeding starving people and saving drowning people - it's the degree to which you are saying white people aren't drowning or starving which is where the issue lies.

The statistics for those at the bottom of society simply do not support your position.

By your own statistics though, if you are born a black man in America you are almost twice as likely to live in poverty as a white man (18% v 10%). That is a massive disparity, and surely worth addressing, no?

 

[m]

1. I haven't taken offence. I just think its an absolutely stupid statement. No one has explained to me why they need to prioritise ethnic minorities business owners need to be prioritised over white men. All businesses have suffered under covid. Race is literally irrelevant and doesn't need to be brought into it

2. It "stuns me" people care so much about the race of business owners. It really doesn't matter. Initiatives like black pound day are mental, who honestly cares what race a business owner is? I thought society had moved on

3. It really isn't just me who thought that tweet was ludicrous. Obviously everyone with that opinion is a "racist" in your book.

4. Dont imply other people are racists just because you disagree with their take on something they've said.

1.It was a general point re offence. It's clear on social media that people have taken offence. I know literally nothing of the breakdown of ownership of US businesses by ethnicity and/or existing support systems. Therefore I've no idea if a targeted focus is needed. Biden's perception is that targeted focus is required.

2.Agree, see above.

3.Eh? People can think it's a daft statement, it's clear many felt more strongly than that. I didn't imply the former were racist and it's a serious stretch to say I did with the latter.

4.I didn't. Stop making up B*****s to support your agenda. And stop being a hypocrite: you called Biden a racist because you disagreed with his view.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

1.It was a general point re offence. It's clear on social media that people have taken offence. I know literally nothing of the breakdown of ownership of US businesses by ethnicity and/or existing support systems. Therefore I've no idea if a targeted focus is needed. Biden's perception is that targeted focus is required.

2.Agree, see above.

3.Eh? People can think it's a daft statement, it's clear many felt more strongly than that. I didn't imply the former were racist and it's a serious stretch to say I did with the latter.

4.I didn't. Stop making up B*****s to support your agenda. And stop being a hypocrite: you called Biden a racist because you disagreed with his view.

I didn't call Biden a racist. I said the tweet was an example of instutionalised racism. He probably made the statement in good faith, I just think its an insane, backward statement to make.

America doesn't need to "prioritise" any small business owner. They're all in the same boat with covid. I refuse to accept more than 0.00000000000000001% of the American population dont use certain businesses because of the colour of the owners skin or their gender. Its bonkers.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

It is a remarkable interpretation of the decent aim of a decent man to do the decent thing. A few still insist that racism is not a 'real thing', or at least not something that is serious enough to bother us despite the personal experiences of many.

Thankfully the deniers are few in number and only seem to have each other for support. Bottom line: they DEMAND that others accept their views while attempting to deny oxygen to the views of others. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Has anyone on here denied that racism is a real thing? I don't think so.

Debated about the extent of it in the UK, yes.

There will always be a minority of people with racist views from every race unfortunately. As I've said several times, I had some racist things said to me as a kid.

I've never seen anyone in the media or with a platform deny the very existence of racism. It would be like denying the existence of water or the concept of hatred in general.

 

[m]

I didn't call Biden a racist. I said the tweet was an example of instutionalised racism. He probably made the statement in good faith, I just think its an insane, backward statement to make.

America doesn't need to "prioritise" any small business owner. They're all in the same boat with covid. I refuse to accept more than 0.00000000000000001% of the American population dont use certain businesses because of the colour of the owners skin or their gender. Its bonkers.

Fair enough, no-one called anyone racist then.

I've admitted a lack the knowledge to make any reasonable judgement re US business aid so can neither agree or disagree.

On your last point: I'd wager that in parts of the US this number is far greater. Others are more qualified to comment on that than I though.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Yet again, you have taken this out of context @bashamwonderland and @Wandering Yellow.

For completeness, here's a link to the transcript of Bidens speech: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-introduces-economics-labor-nominees-speech-transcript

At no point does he say that Black, Latino Female...or whatever group, will recieve unequal access. It is plain wrong to suggest otherwise.

What he does say is that there were problems with uneven distribution of relief funds last time:

"As the month goes by, a third of Black-owned businesses and more than a fifth of Latino-owned businesses and more than a quarter of Native American-owned businesses, have less than one month of reserves to cover expenses. Previous rounds of economic relief last year helped millions of small businesses stay afloat and keep employees in the payroll. But there were clear problems. Black and Brown owned, small businesses had less access to that relief. Mom and pop shops were often the last in line, while big well-connected businesses jumped in front of the line and got more relief and got it faster."

He has highlighted a specific problem with unequal distribution of covid relief funds to small business, which he is seeking to redress. I daresay he would not say this without tangible evidence that this was actually the case (he's not Trump, after all!) It is nothing more, nothing less.

He goes on to say:
"And at every turn this administration, the Trump administration, has undermined accountability for every tax dollar spent. Weakening oversight, firing inspector generals. So it’s no surprise an independent watchdog found that tens of thousands of ineligible companies receive relief they should not have, including from fraud and abuse, siphoning off support for very small businesses that need it so badly. But the good news is that the relief package passed last month provides additional aid to small businesses and workers."

So the outgoing administration have reduced transparency that would have helped with even distribution and this (sounding like out own fulrough scheme) has also increased fraud and abuse

And then comes the bit that some people are getting so wound up about:

"But as I said from the beginning, the need to make sure that relief and future relief reaches everyone who needs it, we need to do more. These relief dollars will start to flow quickly potentially while the current administration is still in office and they may send out money that they won’t have any control over, but for what we have to control… need control over, I want to be very clear what my priorities are. For distributing this emergency aid swiftly and equitably. Our focus will be on small businesses on main street that aren’t wealthy and well-connected, that are facing real economic hardships through no fault of their own. Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women owned businesses, and finally having equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild."

And somehow this has triggered people into thinking he is prioritising everyone else over poor white people and that they just have to stay poor and suck it up, whislt others step over them

It is out of context and a complete over-reaction by some who seem to be purposefully trying to find an issue where there is none.

Just read the transcript and please point out the sections whre Biden is saying poor white people don't count or count less.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

You seem to agree that racism exists. You debate the extent of it. So is 'a little bit of racism' acceptable? Which racist events should be countered and which should be accepted with a shrug? Surely while racism exists in any form it should be fought.

What about my post made you think I "seem" to agree? I outright said I do agree.

Racism isn't acceptable in the same way that that all forms of hatred and prejudice aren't acceptable. Of course they should be fought. Do I think its possible to totally eradicate anyone being racist? I dont think so. How many anti-bullying campaigns have there been in schools? Unfortunately there will always be a minority of idiots, its one of those awful facts of life.

What we shouldn't do is actively search for racism and create problems when there aren't any, and we shouldn't dilute the meaning of racism by calling people who aren't racist racists or calling things that aren't racist racist.

If you look on certain accounts on twitter some people will have you believe absolutely everything is racist in some way. Its not helpful or useful and it only serves to divide us. Its not good to put skin colour at the forefront of everything. What good does it do?

 

[chuckbert]

I refuse to accept more than 0.00000000000000001% of the American population dont use certain businesses because of the colour of the owners skin or their gender.

I’m trying to work out if you really meant what you said here. You think that literally zero people in the US will not use a business due to the colour or gender of the owner?
I must have misunderstood because that is a highly unlikely scenario.