Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You can't cherry pick which protests and protest styles, and rhetorics, are the ideal ones, and then say only those are valid or right.

That is divisive in itself, because it creates this mentality of making lists of right ways and wrong ways of being against racist violence from security forces. Nor can you just take the question of funding police so lightly: even community security minded public administrations have decreased relative costs in policing by implementing other programmes in education or equal opportunities, in job creation or reducing housing discrimination, or being more efficient (police, like military forces, tend to insist on useless toys they see other forces using, it is obsessive at times). 

I went to a demonstration today called by the communities of African origins in Spain. I go without judging what might happen, how someone wants to manifest their ire or rage, the level of articulation. If someone is enraged and want to express that at the cops, it is their choice. I used to not participate in certain demonstrations and activist causes because I was not 100% in agreement, and now I take it as a pluralist experience where everyone gets to have their own message. We are not in a world where there are these single messages and people march around as if indoctrinated in into a homogenous cause. I

The demonstration in Barcelona turned out to be rather soft in its message and insisted on a non-violent approach, but that was their prerogative. Not every human is in the same place, in terms of knowledge, awareness or experience, and not all interpret personal or collective activism in the same way. 

You criticize my comment as divisive and cherry picking, but you also cherry picked my comment, since you criticized it for being divisive, but chose not to criticize the divisiveness of what MAK says. Were you aware of that? Just wanted to point that out.

I agree that we do not want to be divisive. We are all on the same team in that we want to see police brutality end. 

Edited by Obinna
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 909
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://www.lafc.com/post/2020/06/05/message-america-mark-anthony-kaye A message to America. My name is Mark-Anthony Kaye and I am a proud black man. I am deeply angered and sa

I enjoy their delusions.  Let them think they are an amazing world power.  Arrogance never serves you well.   

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, Obinna said:

You criticize my comment as divisive and cherry picking, but you also cherry picked my comment, since you criticized it for being divisive, but chose not to criticize the divisiveness of what MAK says. Were you aware of that? Just wanted to point that out.

I agree that we do not want to be divisive. We are all on the same team in that we want to see police brutality end. 

Well you may be right, but you did say that Alphonse was taking the right approach, or that you preferred it and MAK was not sending out a message that you liked. And I am saying both could go, they are two different humans. 

BTW, Alphonse has never lived as an anonymous black man in LA, in the USA, and MAK has; because playing MLS means absolutely nothing, he is not at all recognized (the supposed factor protecting you from arbitrary police violence, which of course is appaling in itself), while Alphonso has been a public figure in Vancouver and Munich since almost day one.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Well you may be right, but you did say that Alphonse was taking the right approach, or that you preferred it and MAK was not sending out a message that you liked. And I am saying both could go, they are two different humans. 

BTW, Alphonse has never lived as an anonymous black man in LA, in the USA, and MAK has; because playing MLS means absolutely nothing, he is not at all recognized (the supposed factor protecting you from arbitrary police violence, which of course is appaling in itself), while Alphonso has been a public figure in Vancouver and Munich since almost day one.

 

 

The reason I did not like it was because it was divisive. The same reason you gave for not liking what I had to say.

I do agree when you say everyone is not in the same place in terms of knowledge, awareness and experience. That is very true and we all must keep that in mind (myself included). We are all better off if we listen with an open and loving heart.

If someone manifests their rage in an illogical way, that is understandable and I should be more understanding of that, because it is a personal expression. However, certain individuals are putting pressure on others to protest in a particular way or else they are “part of the problem”. 

When it stops being about your personal expression and starts being about someone else’s, there is a problem.

Edited by Obinna
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Obinna said:

The reason I did not like it was because it was divisive. The same reason you gave for not liking what I had to say.

I do agree when you say everyone is not in the same place in terms of knowledge, awareness and experience. That is very true and we all must keep that in mind (myself included). We are all better off if we listen with an open and loving heart.

If someone manifests their rage in an illogical way, that is understandable and I should be more understanding of that, because it is a personal expression. However, certain individuals are putting pressure on others to protest in a particular way or else they are “part of the problem”. 

When it stops being about your personal expression and starts being about someone else’s, there is a problem.

I mean you are right but then again if you're not black, you don't really understand how we are going about expressing ourselves especially during this troubling, disturbing time. I mean naturally we have rage towards the police because they are the problem and yes most black people have expressed their views on this. But then most who haven't and have stayed silent, then it basically lets the rest of the community know whose side you're on. Because if you're black and you have been a victim of police brutality or even racial profiling or you have been a victim of racism by the white man, then will you truly understand what we go through. Kaye is right well in most ways. Just like how Phonzie is right. Because it is a touchy subject for all of us black people right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TGAA_Star said:

I mean you are right but then again if you're not black, you don't really understand how we are going about expressing ourselves especially during this troubling, disturbing time. I mean naturally we have rage towards the police because they are the problem and yes most black people have expressed their views on this. But then most who haven't and have stayed silent, then it basically lets the rest of the community know whose side you're on. Because if you're black and you have been a victim of police brutality or even racial profiling or you have been a victim of racism by the white man, then will you truly understand what we go through. Kaye is right well in most ways. Just like how Phonzie is right. Because it is a touchy subject for all of us black people right now.

This is the big misunderstanding in my opinion. 

We are all on the same team. We all want to see police brutality end, especially when that police brutality is discriminatory based on race.

Why are we making such assumptions about those who are publicly silent? You don't know the conversations they have or actions they take in private. Even if someone takes no action or has no conversations doesn't mean they are on a side. Like @Unnamed Trialist said, everyone has their own experience and understanding and way of dealing with these things, which is personal. 

That is just a "with us or against us" mentality and it is not helpful. We are in this fight against police brutality together.

Edited by Obinna
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Obinna said:

This is the big misunderstanding in my opinion. 

We are all on the same team. We all want to see police brutality end, especially when that police brutality is discriminatory based on race.

Why are we making such assumptions about those who are publicly silent? You don't know the conversations they have or actions they take in private. Even if someone takes no action or has no conversations doesn't mean they are on a side. Like @Unnamed Trialist said, everyone has their own experience and understanding and way of dealing with these things, which is personal. 

That is just a "with us or against us" mentality and it is not helpful.

Yes we want to see it end but then again like I said for MAK and a lot of us black people it is a sensitive time and it is a really sensitive matter but at the same time we all need to come together and unify 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TGAA_Star said:

 I mean naturally we have rage towards the police because they are the problem  

I'm glad that you think you have figured it out but unfortunately it's not as simple as that. What happened should never never have happened, I think we all agree on that, but to say "they are the problem" you make it sound like all police are the problem which is not the case. With all due respect.

Just to clarify I'm a first generation Canadian and believe me when my parents came from Europe in the 50's there was race problems also against us and I'm not talking only about police.

Edited by MtlMario
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Obinna said:

The reason I did not like it was because it was divisive. The same reason you gave for not liking what I had to say.

I do agree when you say everyone is not in the same place in terms of knowledge, awareness and experience. That is very true and we all must keep that in mind (myself included). We are all better off if we listen with an open and loving heart.

If someone manifests their rage in an illogical way, that is understandable and I should be more understanding of that, because it is a personal expression. However, certain individuals are putting pressure on others to protest in a particular way or else they are “part of the problem”. 

When it stops being about your personal expression and starts being about someone else’s, there is a problem.

I agree that you can't be coercive as you say with the discourse, it is too simplistic: if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. That is not fair, not everyone has an activist nature. If you think MAK is doing that, fine, I accept your reasoning. That sort of argument is just there to try to force push people into mobilising so others, the woke activists, can make brasher claims about the numbers.

Another similar one is unless you are openly anti-racist you are abetting, which is a fine argument, but also is asking a lot of some people. For some people, just not being racist is in fact a lot, like not being violent. Even in the Afro-American community there are very high profile people who have never been activists, they don't have it as part of their character, and sometimes peers are rather hard on them, as if they were not living up to their fame (classic example cited is Michael Jordan).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I agree that you can't be coercive as you say with the discourse, it is too simplistic: if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. That is not fair, not everyone has an activist nature. If you think MAK is doing that, fine, I accept your reasoning. That sort of argument is just there to try to force push people into mobilising so others, the woke activists, can make brasher claims about the numbers.

Another similar one is unless you are openly anti-racist you are abetting, which is a fine argument, but also is asking a lot of some people. For some people, just not being racist is in fact a lot, like not being violent. Even in the Afro-American community there are very high profile people who have never been activists, they don't have it as part of their character, and sometimes peers are rather hard on them, as if they were not living up to their fame (classic example cited is Michael Jordan).

 

You bring up a good argument but when it comes to football especially️ football, racism exists even still to this day 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Obinna said:

This is the big misunderstanding in my opinion. 

We are all on the same team. We all want to see police brutality end, especially when that police brutality is discriminatory based on race.

Why are we making such assumptions about those who are publicly silent? You don't know the conversations they have or actions they take in private. Even if someone takes no action or has no conversations doesn't mean they are on a side. Like @Unnamed Trialist said, everyone has their own experience and understanding and way of dealing with these things, which is personal. 

That is just a "with us or against us" mentality and it is not helpful. We are in this fight against police brutality together.

In Spain a lot of the silence has to do with how an immigrant culture is constructed, which is mostly without papers at first. So you have rather large numbers of visible minorities who make this effort to fly under the radar. They have already made an amazing effort just to get into the country, considering crossing the Strait of Gibraltar means crossing a 14km wide Rio Grande, if you get my point. Or coming in by other means. 

Everything is about lying low, including putting up with atrocious racism and institutional violence, just to be able to stay long term. And even when they do have papers, and their kids may have Spanish nationality and speak without an accent (of course), this forced silence becomes ingrained, it is part of the institutional repression. My wife wondered why so few immigrant groups are politicised (true here), and I argued they were politicized in many cases when they left their native countries, they left for profound reasons related to political critique of their home nations, but the context of being an immigrant in Spain forced them into depoliticization/silence. 

Silence too is a construct not all silent people have control over. 

Edited by Unnamed Trialist
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I agree that you can't be coercive as you say with the discourse, it is too simplistic: if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. That is not fair, not everyone has an activist nature. If you think MAK is doing that, fine, I accept your reasoning. That sort of argument is just there to try to force push people into mobilising so others, the woke activists, can make brasher claims about the numbers.

Another similar one is unless you are openly anti-racist you are abetting, which is a fine argument, but also is asking a lot of some people. For some people, just not being racist is in fact a lot, like not being violent. Even in the Afro-American community there are very high profile people who have never been activists, they don't have it as part of their character, and sometimes peers are rather hard on them, as if they were not living up to their fame (classic example cited is Michael Jordan).

 

Yes that was my reasoning and I agree with the other points you make in this post. It was a good one.

Anti- racism is different from being not racist for sure, because you are actively calling out racism instead of passively ignoring it. That sounds good on the surface, but there are many practical issues with it.

Sometimes racism is obvious, but other times it is relative and based on someone's unique experiences and understandings. The idea of micro-aggression comes to mind and even the general concept of that is not universally agreed upon. Just seems like a messy, impractical and flawed solution in my opinion.

To me it is far easier and more practical to just love each other, respect each other and not get so caught up with race. We should realize our bodies are just vehicles to experience life on this planet anyhow. It is what is on the inside that truly counts.

Edited by Obinna
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

In Spain a lot of the silence has to do with how an immigrant culture is constructed, which is mostly without papers at first. So you have rather large numbers of visible minorities who make this effort to fly under the radar. They have already made an amazing effort just to get into the country, considering crossing the Strait of Gibraltar means crossing a 14km wide Rio Grande, if you get my point. Or coming in by other means. 

Everything is about lying low, including putting up with atrocious racism and institutional violence, just to be able to stay long term. And even when they do have papers, and their kids may have Spanish nationality and speak without an accent (of course), this forced silence becomes ingrained, it is part of the institutional repression. My wife wondered why so few immigrant groups are politicised (true here), and I argued they were politicized in many cases when they left their native countries, they left for profound reasons related to political critique of their home nations, but the context of being an immigrant in Spain forced them into depoliticization/silence. 

Silence too is a construct not all silent people have control over. 

I have a personal story about racism in Spain, feel free to PM me if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Not being racist is not equivalent to apathy. 

Not being racist is a good start, but not calling out racists and actively standing up to them has the same effect as apathy. Intent and consequence are two very different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeoH037 said:

Not being racist is a good start, but not calling out racists and actively standing up to them has the same effect as apathy. Intent and consequence are two very different things.

I see people online point out that all lives matter, then they get clobbered by an outrage mob for being racist. Is that an example of what you mean? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Obinna said:

I see people online point out that all lives matter, then they get clobbered by an outrage mob for being racist. Is that an example of what you mean? 

However not all lives can matter until black lives matter because the fact is black people continue to otherwise be killed either by police or by other races predominantly by whites. Not to mention we are treated unfairly and unjustly either by police or by the law compared to whites who either get treated better than we do by the law or even by cops. There is no racial equality because if there was, then truly all lives would matter and they don't. Just facts. Just the reality of the situation. 

But all things decided though, in football, in the soccer world does racism exist? It does well in most countries especially if you are a black player

So in football, it is really no different than in real life but it is I guess you can say a little bit toned down but it is still very much at the forefront.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Obinna said:

I see people online point out that all lives matter, then they get clobbered by an outrage mob for being racist. Is that an example of what you mean? 

The problem is, that this is a common "Dog whistle." This is when a neutral phrase is used by a certain group to mean something controversial to people who understand, but will trick bystanders into thinking it means exactly what it says. Another example, is when white nationalists say "It's okay to be white." This is true and okay by itself, but when they say it, their goal is to spread propaganda with a double meaning. 

 

Similarly, people who say "All lives matter" aren't really saying that. Historically, it's been used by people who want to delegitimatize Black Lives Matter, and the fight for increased freedoms in general. Instead of looking at the words themselves, it's important to look at who is saying them, and what meaning they're assigning to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, PiedPilko said:

The problem is, that this is a common "Dog whistle." This is when a neutral phrase is used by a certain group to mean something controversial to people who understand, but will trick bystanders into thinking it means exactly what it says. Another example, is when white nationalists say "It's okay to be white." This is true and okay by itself, but when they say it, their goal is to spread propaganda with a double meaning. 

 

Similarly, people who say "All lives matter" aren't really saying that. Historically, it's been used by people who want to delegitimatize Black Lives Matter, and the fight for increased freedoms in general. Instead of looking at the words themselves, it's important to look at who is saying them, and what meaning they're assigning to it.

You are definitely touching on something here and the flip side is there are those on the radical left using "Black Lives Matter" as a dog whistle too, using it as an opportunity to push social and political agendas with propaganda. In both cases we are talking about very small fringe groups, although unfortunately one of those fringes seems to have an organized network (Antifa) that is actively carrying out domestic violence in the streets...

It must be said that you can be on the left and sincerely proclaim BLM and you can be on the right and sincerely proclaim All lives Matter. Furthermore there are shades of grey, you can be politically motivated, conscious you are using Black Lives Matter opportunistically, while also genuinely caring about the cause (and the same for the other side). Things are not as black and white as you describe.

It is sad to say, but I realize that my ethnic background shields me from accusations of being racist when I speak up on this matter. Not everyone has the "privilege" to speak as freely and contrarian about this as I am. That is a sort of discrimination that flies under the radar.

All of these complexities are all the more reason to keep it simple: Be a good and loving person. Stop being racist. Stop being violent. Stop being hateful. It really is that simple.

Edited by Obinna
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PiedPilko said:

The problem is, that this is a common "Dog whistle." This is when a neutral phrase is used by a certain group to mean something controversial to people who understand, but will trick bystanders into thinking it means exactly what it says. Another example, is when white nationalists say "It's okay to be white." This is true and okay by itself, but when they say it, their goal is to spread propaganda with a double meaning. 

 

Similarly, people who say "All lives matter" aren't really saying that. Historically, it's been used by people who want to delegitimatize Black Lives Matter, and the fight for increased freedoms in general. Instead of looking at the words themselves, it's important to look at who is saying them, and what meaning they're assigning to it.

FACTS💯💯💯💯😭 getting chills getting emotional here just thinking about this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Obinna said:

All of these complexities are all the more reason to keep it simple: Be a good and loving person. Stop being racist. Stop being violent. Stop being hateful. It really is that simple.

I think thats why Davies statement was liked by some more than Kayes.  It was very simple, and couldnt really potentially offend anyone no matter where they are on the spectrum of opinions. Kaye has lived in Wilmington, Louisville and LA, I'm sure he has a much different experience than Davies.  There are some articles on Kaye and Kamal Miller.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/story/2020-06-06/nedum-onuoha-mark-anthony-kaye-share-racism-experiences-at-home-and-outsiders

https://en.as.com/en/2020/06/08/other_sports/1591571534_165529.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bison44 said:

I think thats why Davies statement was liked by some more than Kayes.  It was very simple, and couldnt really potentially offend anyone no matter where they are on the spectrum of opinions. Kaye has lived in Wilmington, Louisville and LA, I'm sure he has a much different experience than Davies.  There are some articles on Kaye and Kamal Miller.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/story/2020-06-06/nedum-onuoha-mark-anthony-kaye-share-racism-experiences-at-home-and-outsiders

https://en.as.com/en/2020/06/08/other_sports/1591571534_165529.html

Yeah Kaye living in Southern states is bound to be a victim of racism 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Obinna said:

In both cases we are talking about very small fringe groups, although unfortunately one of those fringes seems to have an organized network (Antifa) that is actively carrying out domestic violence in the streets...

Whooooo, boy.  Gonna have to disagree with you on that one.

Definitely worth a discussion in a different thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...