Support NeoGAF

[Enzom21]

I am willing to bet that everyone who uses MLK to chastise black people, doesn't know shit about the man.
Hope white fragility doesn't get this thread closed too.

Naw, you're just lost, period.

Go easy on him, some of his best friends are black.

 

[kswiston]

I'm glad we got a new version of this thread.

I grew up in white working class/lower-middle class family in a country with a white supermajority, so I am not going to pretend that I know what minority members go through on a daily basis. Money was tight until I was about 17, but beyond that, I had food on the table, proper medical care, access to education, and no one actively holding me back. Really nothing to complain about. The best I will ever have (hopefully) is an outsider's understanding of social oppression. As such, I hope this post doesn't come across as trying to speak for minority members, because it is not meant to.

I am a fan of history, and from everything I have ever read, it seems pretty concrete that social change does not "just happen" in any society, regardless of whether we are looking at 2016 CE or 2016 BCE. The social majority (or the ruling class in societies where the majority is disenfranchised) is always going to be happy with the status quo. Why wouldn't they be? Life is going pretty well for them, and chances are they don't have a lot of personal connections with people outside their own social sphere.

The only way things change is if those changes are fought for by the groups that are being disenfranchised (and their few allies in the majority, since it's the majority that eventually has to do the conceding outside of revolutions). There's no "be patient and be quiet and good things will come to you" option.

With that in mind, as members of the majority, shouldn't we be looking at what Colin Kaepernick is doing, and most of what BLM is doing as the best forms of fighting for social change? People aren't being mass murdered by rioting mobs in their homes and businesses. Cities aren't on fire. There aren't tanks rolling down the streets enforcing martial law. Outside of some isolated incidents that are against the spirits of those movements, we are mostly seeing non-violent activism with a goal in mind and a willingness to communicate rather than aimless acts of anger and violence.

As a professional athlete, Colin Kaepernick knows that his actions will get people talking, and hopefully some people listening. If he simply gave a press conference or interview, who would honestly give a shit besides other minorities and members of the majority already on his side? Most people can casually flip through commercials of children dying of dysentery or malnourishment in South Asia or Latin America because it's far enough removed to have no real effect their personal lives and it's easy to ignore. Making activism convenient for those you need to convince is the best way to have it ignored. Hence the need for the social disruption caused by the suffragists, Ghandi, MLK, Black Lives Matter, etc. Yes, it sucks to be stuck in traffic for an extra hour, but would people even pay attention to what BLM is trying to communicate if they weren't being disrupted? Arguments that those actions do more harm than good are clearly bullshit, because we are already seeing some extremely slow results to the various protests, via body cameras, actual charges being laid against police killing unarmed civilians (even if a lot are still acquitted), and greatly increased commentary on the issue by white members of the majority. Hell, you can even see the change on NeoGAF if you are one of the members who have been here for a decade or so. It's not like unarmed minorities weren't being killed by cops in large numbers in 2006. We just spent a lot less time talking about it. Things have a long way to go, and could be moving faster with less resistance from white people, but we do seem headed for change.

Saying that non-violent protests, sit-ins, traffic blocks, etc do more harm than good, or saying that all they do is divide people, is basically telling disenfranchised groups to shut up and patiently wait for a better tomorrow that is never going to come passively.

 

[Wilsongt]

This makes me dislike Dabo even more than I already did.

Clemson.

Ick.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

K-Swiss, my man.

 

[djplaeskool]

 

[MartyStu]

Sums up the feelings of many of us. Like I'm at a point in my life anyone who summons whitewashed MLK is someone I mentally tune out and basically start talking past. Not worth the mental strain and it's not my responsibility to coddle and educate them.

Sometimes it is actually worth it. If for no other reasons than to fucking blow their minds.

It is quite funny,

 

[psynergylover]

.


LMAO!!!

 

[Skittles]

When white people bring up MLK as an ideal form of protest for black people. Just ask them how he died and say that it doesn't matter how we protest. We still get shot in the end

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I'm glad we got a new version of this thread.

I grew up in white working class/lower-middle class family in a country with a white supermajority, so I am not going to pretend that I know what minority members go through on a daily basis. Money was tight until I was about 17, but beyond that, I had food on the table, proper medical care, access to education, and no one actively holding me back. Really nothing to complain about. The best I will ever have (hopefully) is an outsider's understanding of social oppression. As such, I hope this post doesn't come across as trying to speak for minority members, because it is not meant to.

I am a fan of history, and from everything I have ever read, it seems pretty concrete that social change does not "just happen" in any society, regardless of whether we are looking at 2016 CE or 2016 BCE. The social majority (or the ruling class in societies where the majority is disenfranchised) is always going to be happy with the status quo. Why wouldn't they be? Life is going pretty well for them, and chances are they don't have a lot of personal connections with people outside their own social sphere.

The only way things change is if those changes are fought for by the groups that are being disenfranchised (and their few allies in the majority, since it's the majority that eventually has to do the conceding outside of revolutions). There's no "be patient and be quiet and good things will come to you" option.

With that in mind, as members of the majority, shouldn't we be looking at what Colin Kaepernick is doing, and most of what BLM is doing as the best forms of fighting for social change? People aren't being mass murdered by rioting mobs in their homes and businesses. Cities aren't on fire. There aren't tanks rolling down the streets enforcing martial law. Outside of some isolated incidents that are against the spirits of those movements, we are mostly seeing non-violent activism with a goal in mind and a willingness to communicate rather than aimless acts of anger and violence.

As a professional athlete, Colin Kaepernick knows that his actions will get people talking, and hopefully some people listening. If he simply gave a press conference or interview, who would honestly give a shit besides other minorities and members of the majority already on his side? Most people can casually flip through commercials of children dying of dysentery or malnourishment in South Asia or Latin America because it's far enough removed to have no real effect their personal lives and it's easy to ignore. Making activism convenient for those you need to convince is the best way to have it ignored. Hence the need for the social disruption caused by the suffragists, Ghandi, MLK, Black Lives Matter, etc. Yes, it sucks to be stuck in traffic for an extra hour, but would people even pay attention to what BLM is trying to communicate if they weren't being disrupted? Arguments that those actions do more harm than good are clearly bullshit, because we are already seeing some extremely slow results to the various protests, via body cameras, actual charges being laid against police killing unarmed civilians (even if a lot are still acquitted), and greatly increased commentary on the issue by white members of the majority. Hell, you can even see the change on NeoGAF if you are one of the members who have been here for a decade or so. It's not like unarmed minorities weren't being killed by cops in large numbers in 2006. We just spent a lot less time talking about it. Things have a long way to go, and could be moving faster with less resistance from white people, but we do seem headed for change.

Saying that non-violent protests, sit-ins, traffic blocks, etc do more harm than good, or saying that all they do is divide people, is basically telling disenfranchised groups to shut up and patiently wait for a better tomorrow that is never going to come passively.

Right on.

Everyone should read some history books as an adult, even if it's just pop history. It's a niche hobby for niche readers at this point, but you'll learn so much about how it's always the same shit and how real history gets erased or changed over time. I never thought of America as an "empire" until I read about Romans.

 

[NastyBook]

Lost me when he likened the coach to a slave holder. Totally ridiculous.

Are you talking about this?

I winced when I heard a reporter ask you, a white man who makes somewhere in the area of $5 million a year from the physical labor and bodily risk of unpaid black athletes, if he would “discipline” them for making a political statement. Given that you and I both work on the former plantation of John C. Calhoun, the historical significance of the question is staggering and troubling.

Because he didn't liken the coach to anything. He made an observation based on the reporters question to him. It was ironic given the location of the school. If you didn't read anything past that point, I'm incredibly disappointed in you.

 

[midramble]

Dr. King describes the white moderate as someone who says “”I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” In short, he describes the white moderate as someone who is “more concerned with order than justice.”

This. I obviously don't represent the black community, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I believe. He sought justice through non-violence, NOT non-conflict.

Also emphasis on the justice before non-violence.

I think this is the biggest misconception we have of him. People in a relatively comfortable position claim the champions of non-violence and use them to preach "peace". The problem being that they perceive peace as no conflict. But that's not the point. Peace to these people wasn't the lack of conflict or challenge of the status quo, it's the lack of violence. The point was to vehemently challenge injustice loudly and visibly.

We loosely associate MLK with only peace, and in our privileged world peace is a place in order, without tension or blame. We create this image of him somehow silently affecting change without offending anyone and parade him as a non-confrontational sacrificial saint. Which is in stark contrast to the man that created such upheaval that he was murdered out of fear.

The simple and bad logic is
MLK=non-violence non-violence=non-conflict non-conflict=don't offend me on the internet or insult my way of life.

We want to forget/ignore the justice part because justice is still due.

So, I challenge those who want to turn this thread into, "don't label/offend me" to consider this. If you are offended by being grouped into a demographic of people resisting progress and justice why should you identify with that group and take that offense? When the term white society is used, in my mind, it is capturing the general society that has an advantage over blacks and is slow in progress towards equalization and justice. It makes up a large portion of what we are. If you are a person that wants to help or at least empathizes, then don't take offense.

Make no mistake though, telling the black community that they shouldn't be offended, that they shouldn't complain, that they shouldn't demand action from the white community, that they shouldn't be inconvenient, that they shouldn't cause tension, that they shouldn't offend anyone , and so on, literally puts you in a stance of resistance to progress. When it's more important for you not to be offended, than those experiencing injustice to be heard, I believe perspective is lost. Or there is no empathy there, but I expect/hope that isn't the case.

Also, if your claim is that being offensive is not conducive to progress towards alliance and friendship, consider that this isn't exactly a mission of friendship, it's a mission of justice. How can you expect a relationship to be friendly before equality is established?

Edit: Better said by kswis