Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

[Anondson]

Can Academia social science help police/citizen relations?

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... ign=buffer

[Didier]

David Greene, I'm curious to hear your take on this.

http://www.startribune.com/black-lives- ... 326119731/

[David Greene]

Why ask me? Ask BLM leaders.

The whole thing is a distraction. The chant was said by a few people, led by a very misguided white woman who is NOT a BLM leader and was quickly stopped. It took all of two minutes in a four hour action.

This is SPPD/the police union trying to deflect from the real issue.

[Didier]

I'm asking you because you've been very outspoken about your support for this group, and because no Black Lives Matter leaders post here.

Did you read the piece I linked to? I have to assume you didn't, based on your conclusion that it somehow represents the police union "deflecting from the real issue."

This piece laid out the "real issues" in a very clear and convincing way, and the author very credibly questioned whether the group has it's priorities right. After the State Fair protest, many people are wondering the same thing. So I'm curious about the reasons you remain so confident in the direction of BLM.

And on a larger point, are you referring to police brutality as the "real issue"?

[mplsjaromir]

It's really dumb to blame a school district for having low income students.

So basically the op-ed is another tired "pulling up you bootstraps".

Why don't more police leaders decry actual acts of violence?

[Didier]

I'm pretty sure you didn't read the piece either. ?

[mplsjaromir]

I did.

He said people should be nicer to cops.

He said BLM should march on St Paul and Minneapolis schools for having students with low test scores.

I read the terrible op-ed.

[Didier]

Actually, it said this:

While the message of ending police abuse is important, the Black Lives Matter movement is not seeing the forest from the trees. The movement needs a more transformative message focusing on the bigger issues that plague the black community.

[mplsjaromir]

Translation: stop hurting cops sensitive feelings and change the subject.

[Didier]

Your post struck me as so delusional that I had to re-read the article. And my first impression was right.

That you could read that and conclude the two main points are "be nicer to cops" and "march on schools for having low test scores" is proof that people only see what they want to see.

What the article actually said — from the very first paragraph — is that a stupid chant and the subsequent failure to condemn the chant is taking away from the movement's credibility, and that the issues within the black community go much deeper than the legitimate issue of police brutality.

[Didier]

Translation: stop hurting cops sensitive feelings and change the subject.

This is the very first paragraph of the article.

Does racism still exist in America? Absolutely. Have some police officers in this country abused their obligation to protect and serve the public by violating the civil rights of black Americans, including the killing of innocent black men? Yes, and the justice system should hold them responsible. For these reasons alone, the Black Lives Matter movement in Minnesota has merit.

So it's a pretty easy decision for me to retire from talking to you now.

[David Greene]

If he wants to march on schools, let him organize it. BLM has organized around the issues most important to them. No one can tell another person what he or she should care about.

It's total deflection to condemn a movement for not focusing on the issues you think it should focus on. It's the equivalent of condemning breast cancer awareness groups for not working on heart disease.

SPPD and the police union are relevant here because they are the ones that made a big stink about a two-minute chant.

And yes, I read the article. Did you read my response? The part about how the chant began and how it was quickly stifled?

The. Chant. Is. A. Total. Distraction.

[David Greene]

I'm asking you because...no Black Lives Matter leaders post here.

Put some effort into it, man. Otherwise you're just not credible as a critic.

[David Greene]

'm curious about the reasons you remain so confident in the direction of BLM.

1. I am in relationship with some of the BLM leaders
2. They have got stuff done

[LakeCharles]

David Greene, I'm curious to hear your take on this.

http://www.startribune.com/black-lives- ... 326119731/

I really hope this is just an effective troll, Didier.

The article is essentially saying unless BLM spends the appropriate (defined by this lawyer, I guess?) proportion of time on each issue facing the black community, it cannot be credible. Which is a crazy argument. Think of this board, for one. We haven't solved all education problems on here either, so I guess we are utterly useless?

And then for David somehow to have to "refute" this asinine take? Come on.

[Didier]

Trolling? I think it's a pretty mainstream view right now to be sympathetic to the issues raised by Black Lives Matter but skeptical of the actual organization.

Outside of niche communities like this one, the State Fair protest was largely not understood. It came off as a protest for the sake of a protest, and then the stupid chant — and the leaders' failure to condemn it — enhanced that perception. This is reflected in just about any mainstream, or even niche, coverage of the topic.

David Green has been singularly in support of the movement on this message board, and I was genuinely interested in his take on the recent developments.

[Didier]

The article is essentially saying unless BLM spends the appropriate (defined by this lawyer, I guess?) proportion of time on each issue facing the black community, it cannot be credible. Which is a crazy argument. Think of this board, for one. We haven't solved all education problems on here either, so I guess we are utterly useless?

And like the guy last night, I think you're very much misrepresenting what the article actually says. This black lawyer who is obviously sympathetic and active to black causes is categorically agreeing that police abuse is real and worth protesting against. That's the first paragraph.

The author is arguing that a lack of vision and execution from the BLM leaders could squander a unique opportunity to affect change not just in police abuse but in the many other — perhaps more important? — issues affecting black lives.

I'm honestly pretty surprised by the responses to what I thought was a pretty well-written opinion by an obviously credible person. It's like anything remotely questioning BLM and you guys are reacting like it's Jason Lewis writing "all lives matter."

[David Greene]

History is replete with examples of people criticizing effective movements on "vision," "execution," "message," "tactics," and on and on and on.

The best movements ignore the criticisms from those not in relationship with them, listen to and carefully consider the criticisms from those who are, and then go out and get stuff done.

IME, BLM has done an outstanding job of this.

There is a reason very powerful organizations are in deep relationship with BLM.

[mplsjaromir]

Black Lives Matter is successful because if focuses on one specific issue. The irrefutable fact that black unarmed people are killed by police at a high rate and often officers involved do not receive sufficient scrutiny.

By asking the leaders to now take a 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach, one can question the author's motive. In my experience being a lawyer does not make you credible by any means.

[Tiller]

While I've only been watching this conversation since I haven't had much to say, I think I know exactly what Didier (and the author of the article) is saying now.

Anyone remember Occupy Wall Street? The concern being brought up about the Black Lives Matter movement (in this instance) is NOT a "well then why do black people kill eachother in the inner cities" kind of concern. It is a "how can we make sure #BLM affects meaningful change?" kind of concern.

Occupy Wall Street grabbed headlines for a while, but ultimately didn't do much besides start conversations (which haven't lead to much until today). #BLM has also started a conversation, which has also been helpful, but because social media is much more prominent and widespread today than it was 5 years ago, #BLM has an opportunity to do far more than #OWS ever did. #OWS never really had a list of grievences, and didn't directly affect our political process, before it fell apart. #BLM shouldn't (and hopefully doesn't) follow the same path. So far, there has been some form of progress in that direction (I recall there being a list of things release that various #BLM activists would like to have done), I'm not so sure it's been that effective (with potentially the most meaningful thing they've done (if he gets elected) being confronting Bernie Sanders).

Part of the issue might just be that not much time has passed. Mass movements in the past have been able to successfully agitate for change, so we know it is entirely possible.

Edit: and I do generally agree with the two preceding comments. police brutality is an issue specific enough to get addressed, and efforts to dramatically broaden the scope of #BLM would probably be harmful. Intersectionalism needs to stay out this time.

Second Edit: I just went back to re-read the article (since I last read it a couple of days ago). The author is right on accountability, wrong on broadening the movement (for now).