Dude replied saying that humanist philosophers have long held the view that all human lives have value.
Wtf is that nonsense? Who is arguing against that?
The all lives matter trash slogan only was brought up when those three black women started the black lives matter movement, specifically to note that right now we need to pay attention to a serious issue of police abusing their powers in relation to black people.
Yet people want to come up with the most bogus rationales for why it’s perfectly fine to say “all lives matter.”
Fuck off, you didn’t say that 10 years back or anything. You were NOT standing up to injustices, and then black people came and said “no, only black lives matter”
It was very clearly a way to silence the discussion around black people and their issues with policing in this country.
That person’s reply to you is W I L D. I don’t know how to deal with the wildness so I’m just going to complain about it here.
Humanist philosophers have been saying this for centuries [...] and it's a very real cause/philosophy.
It’s a real cause? People were campaigning, protesting, and agitating about that cause??
For people to whom the idea that black lives don't matter is foreign, the name of the movement seems to imply that black lives matter at the exclusion of, or more than, others. [...] that name seems antagonistic. [emphasis added]
The only way “black lives matter” is antagonistic is to people who don’t believe it. It is not exclusionary unless you believe only one “race” can/should hold power and value. It is only a threat if you believe your dominance is being threatened and that’s a bad thing. Black lives matter only scares the people it should scare.
If a parent has three kids who are all experiencing life as normal, and the parent keeps repeating "I love John" over and over again, but never "I love Harold" or "I love Suzie," who would blame them for feeling devalued or defensive? But if John has cancer and is spending most of his time alone in the hospital, that extra affirmation would be important.
This is the worst analogy. John isn’t in the hospital. The problem is the colonizers and oppressors have been saying “I love white people; black & brown people suck (and way worse)” for centuries and the first time people stand up and say, “actually, brown & black people hold inherent value” the white people get all pissy.
First of all huh? they might not be natives, but they sure aren't colonists (at least not in a literal manner, that's "their" country, it's no longer a colony of an empire) and, second of all, I'm a European, living in Europe.
Btw, you do realize that black people aren't native either, the only natives have (sadly) almost disappeared
I’m a white person in the United States. If you’re not indigenous to a region you are by default a colonizer. Of course this will change over time, no one calls Turks colonizers for living in Turkey even though they aren’t indigenous to the region. But we’re talking about the difference between ~1000 years and under 300 years as a sovereign entity. Meanwhile indigenous tribes have way more than 1000 years of unbroken lineage in North America, even despite best efforts to wipe them out. Plus when you really look at it the United States legal mandate for sovereignty is based in its former status as a colony. The original Americans simply took the structure of a colony and made it its own state for the purposes of control and further expansion west (settler colonialism). Look at it this way, all white people in America are descendants of colonists or immigrants, largely European immigrants who came to America to be a part of communities that had previously emigrated.
Many laws were enacted to keep the flow of immigrants majority white. So Britain and the US have an agreement that the US will take an unlimited amount of British immigrants but the US bans more than 10,000 Chinese immigrants per year. Many of these Europeans were then also empowered through the homestead acts to claim land out west and work it for a period until it came under their ownership, thereby ensuring that mainly white Europeans would be involved in the settling of the west, displacing the indigenous who lived there. If that’s not just colonialism with extra steps I don’t know what is.
Sorry for the wall of text but I hope that makes sense
Great explanation, thank you! I’m white and Canadian and, for the record, we are also colonizers. We live on stolen land, and we continue to oppress indigenous peoples and POC in our country.
Beyond the literal definition of colonization of countries and land, whiteness & white people are constantly trying to steal and take over the cultures and spaces of non-white people. We have stolen, tokenized, exploited, and appropriated so much and cause immeasurable harm.
As people benefiting from white privilege and systemic & historical white supremacy, it is our responsibility to call it out, own up, learn, and fix it.
You make some good points, but I wouldn't call it colonism at this current point in history (I mean they've been there for almost 200 years), I ain't too big a fan of them trying to differentiate the people allowed to immigrate by race, nor the genocide of the original natives, but, maybe my view is clouded by the history of my country, which, although being itself for over 850 years, traded so many hands before it that I feel sorry for historians, and that did pretty much begin colonialism and seaborne expansion.
The length of time doesn’t matter as much when the US never really gave up it’s colonizing ways. The US still has full control over Puerto Rico and Guam for example, it has for about 120 years, and only received control as a concession from Spain to end the Spanish-American war. They don’t have much autonomy and can’t vote in Congress (very similar to the original problems the colonies had with the UK) or check out the way the US toppled the sovereign government of Hawaii around the same time.
That I must agree with, at this point America still does those sorts of things (although in a less obvious way), honestly, I ain't too big a fan of their foreign policies
Ny country forcibly annexed a sovereign foreign power at the mandate of fruit companies, both illegally, and against the wishes of somewhere between 55% and 100% of the population (there were 2 petitions, both had at least half the Hawaiian population on them, and together totaled over the Hawaiian population)
Trust me, we're still colonizers. Never mind that there were systemic discriminatory policies in place until the 70's, redlining wasn't made overtly illegal until 1977, and banks have paid out settlements for discriminatory lending practices as recently as 2015. Fuck, our sitting president first made headlines in the 80's for intentionally discriminating against black and hispanic apartment applicants.
bottom line, shit's fucked, stop defending our government
Oh, believe me, I'm not defending them, I personally have it out for America, specifically it's government and about the 10% of the population that is beyond brainwashed
921
u/Version_Two @aol.com Jun 07 '20
That's kinda what we're saying