Isn’t that a fundamental flaw in the Black Lives Matter movement, when you focus on skin color? Is it because these people are black, that’s the problem? Maybe you should rather have a strategy that leads away from separating at all due to skin color?
But I do not think it is the color of the skin that decides, but the socio-economic position they are in – with slavery as a distant, historical background. This is very evident in the huge class society the United States is. About a quarter with an African background live in poverty. Indians and Latinos are other groups that have much worse conditions than the majority of Anglo Americans. Even among the latter, poverty and a life on the shadowy sides of society is the reality for same. It is a number of society’s screening mechanisms such as background, family, money, education, contact, friends, etc., that get these results.
Instead of, for example, demanding free education for blacks, certain positions in the social organization such as black teachers, editors, judges, etc., one should work to break down the class society and create equal conditions for all citizens. In today’s world, there are people who engage in symbolic politics, probably because they do not have the ability to make real contributions to the people and communities in which they live. It is these outsiders, who are engaged in demanding meaningless dismantling of statues with famous personalities, who have made an impression on society in their time.
These frustrated souls are joined by thugs, even more death-diggers in the swamps of society, whose interest is to tear down, crush and destroy what others have created. Unfortunately, they do not have the ability to achieve anything positive in this society. A product of the spirit of the times themselves, they do not seem to understand what the spirit of the times is, as they quarrel over the names of historically important people – such as Linnaeus, who in Sweden had a university named after him – without understanding that these people and their works should be seen and understood in the time when they lived and not put today’s perceptions and values on them.
But it seems that violent demonstrations play a central role in BLM’s strategy. But overturning statues and burning down houses is not something that builds confidence among the masses one depends on to bring about adequate and sustainable change. Such strategies are perceived as threats and create fear, and it is that such strategies will not force any positive change. It will not wor! Rather, the second shows that BLM is not something people can trust and sympathize with. Completely failed!
As for police violence in the United States, it is a special story, which is not just about the police’s relationship with blacks. This is partly due to the fact that the United States is a violent society – in that respect very different from ours in Sweden. In the United States, many are armed and prepared to use their weapons – even against police. This is something the police officer must always include in his considerations and attitudes and can ultimately risk his life. In addition, the police authorities have recruitment and training problems and partly a militaristic culture. But when BLM takes over a residential area as in Seattle, it goes completely wrong with law and order.
In the information we receive about police violence, it seems that the police primarily shoot and kill young black men. According to the Washington Post, police shoot and kill about 1,000 people each year. Of these, about 600 were armed and 100 unarmed (the rest had other toles). White policeman who shoots and kills black men makes up four percent of the total number killed. The image we get thus seems angled and BLM may have an interest in emphasizing that it is primarily black people who are killed by the police. Maybe it is also the image that makes Swedish and other angry young men demonstrate and partly ravage Swedish streets. Certain advice on social distance in corona times then means nothing. The Black Lives Matter movement seems to same extend be populated by some of these failed people, who become a nuisance to the communities they terrorize, burn and destroy innocent people’s buildings, cars, works, etc. How can anyone believe that poverty is being eradicated by burning buildings and overturning statues? What sympathies do they think they arouse in the sensible and sensible part of the population? They brand themselves as lunatics and arouse antipathy.
Kritikern Alf 