I can only imagine one group of people who would feel less welcome by that banner.
I'd be happy to expand upon that if you would like.
I'd be happy to expand upon that if you would like.
That's not even accounting for how perhaps the focus exclusively on American issues could leave the the rest of the world feeling less welcome?
If you look at the data in aggragate, I believe you'll find that there's a disparity even when controlling for factors like that.
> But in countries like the U.K. where one third of their police killings in a whole year are a terrorist who was in the middle of a stabbing spree? That’s just ideological fashion.
British police don't carry firearms in the general case so obviously police deaths aren't a large issue for British BLM, but there's still very much a racial disparity in justice system encounters that still exists despite controlling for the kinds of factors you listed previously. Different sentences for the same crime kind of stuff.
I’m almost certain that this isn’t the case. I think the crime rate alone accounts for the whole disparity and then some. I’ll dig up sources when I have more time. My best steel man is that police are profiling blacks in their killings; blacks do commit more crimes, but whether or not a particular black person commits crimes may not feature strongly in whether or not he is likely to be killed by police. In any case, the more important detail is that we didn’t even talk about it. Anyone who suggested as much was immediately dismissed as a racist; the media never even entertained the question.
> British police don't carry firearms in the general case so obviously police deaths aren't a large issue for British BLM, but there's still very much a racial disparity in justice system encounters that still exists despite controlling for the kinds of factors you listed previously. Different sentences for the same crime kind of stuff.
Perhaps, but it’s very strange to me that the U.K. would respond to subtler forms of alleged discrimination the similarly to how the US responded to graphic videos of black men being killed by police. I won’t argue the point since it’s all speculation either way.
It makes sense to millions of Americans, including those who are not directly impacted by it.
If by "protest" you mean the violence that has sprouted up at these events, then no, that makes no sense at all for the cause itself. But it does make perfect sense for those who want to delegitimize it, e.g., https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-...
Why would a non-US visitor feel unwelcome seeing that? Why w
And as far as it being a political message, that's also a matter of branding. It's been actively demonized by one particular party, whereas most of its supporters likely consider it to be apolitical -- simply about social justice.
I think you have you answer in there - anyone who watches/reads Fox News or similar thinks that BLM is something very different than you think it is.
You can choose to write off anyone in the world who watches conservative TV, but you can't call yourself welcoming for doing so.
As a non-US visitor with some knowledge of history I am extremely put off by the banner supporting an extremist communist organization, like it is nothing. Just have a look at their original manifesto that is now removed from their website (wayback machine has it).
Some folks actively avoid politics, and seeing it at Go doesn't increase my confidence in the judgement of the folks leading Go.
The "you're actively with us, otherwise you're against us" mindset must learn nuance. Not everybody has to be political all of the time.
Of course, modern critical theory would tell you that it's only by the result of privilege that one can afford to remain apolitical. If you're not actively antiracist, you're racist, and so on.
What a world we live in.