Hacker News Reader

> Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities

I recently talked to a mom who visited her adult foster daughter with a different skin tone. Her daughter reminded her to make sure she doesn't forget her ID in the hotel.

The mom was confused. They were just going to take a walk in Munich. Why would she need an ID? She never has an ID on her when she goes for a walk.

The daughter said, because the police, they stop you and ask to see your ID!

Mom couldn't believe it that the police was so different in Munich. Then it dawned on her. Foster daughter had brown skin, so she was randomly stopped by police and asked for ID because she looks like an immigrant.

Mom was white and has never ever been stopped by police before.

The police absolutely treat people different because of race.

ok but the parent comment was discussing policing and blackness in America, I don't agree with their conclusions but at any rate comparing that situation to policing in Munich doesn't really make much sense.

I think the point is that white people are likely to lack this lived experience. If there's a massive difference in opinion about racism in the country between white and black Americans, that difference of opinion may be due to factors that white people can't easily see.

I certainly believe that American police and the American justice system treat black people worse than it treats white people, although the parent commenter was also correct that they hurt whomever they feel they have the power to hurt in my experience they still treat black people worse, all that clarified although I expected it should have been clear from my previous comment that still does not make anyone's experience of policing in Munich relevant (assuming it is Munich, Germany we're talking about)

Black Lives Matter protests were in several European cities as well. Not as big as in the US, of course. But racist police are a world wide problem, it's not something limited to the US.

in my experience while Europe and the U.S have similar problems things play out quite differently in each, and it is often useless to make a comparison for this reason.

I've also seen a free Leonard Peltier protest march in Copenhagen, but I'm not sure that the state of Native American rights in Denmark and the U.S is somehow comparable.

The point of my story was not that the police are racist. The point was that racism is sometimes invisible to people who are not personally affected.

This point is universal and it doesn't matter on which side of the Atlantic it happened.

Ok, sorry for my misunderstanding your point which is one that I would be in agreement with.

> Foster daughter had brown skin, so she was randomly stopped by police and asked for ID because she looks like an immigrant.

This conclusion isn't quite there.

In China, foreigners are notionally required to carry their passport with them. I have never actually obeyed that, because it is a very bad idea. And it's never mattered, because although I'm obligated to produce it on demand, that demand has never been made.

It's not because I blend in. Any idiot can see that I'm not Chinese. "Looking like an immigrant" is not sufficient to be stopped by the police.

The fact that so many large corporations are eager to throw money at BLM, change their corporate logos to black, etc. while doing nothing tangible to address the real issues, proves to me that the current identity politics narrative is serving the elite very well.

> while doing nothing tangible to address the real issues

Doing things to solve the real issues would run into difficult real-world problems both symbolic and logistical/physical. Overcoming them require having conversations where people

1. Do creative problem-solving

2. Say “well, actually...” about practical implementation details.

3. Speak honestly about the real difficulties and risks of unintended consequences.

4. Admit to failure and error and even inattention.

All of which is blocked by similar social dynamics to the ones discussed in the article.

> Why make everything about identity; where has the traditional focus on class gone?

that's the point of identity politics, to take away that focus by distracting and dividing the working class

https://i.imgur.com/wusW5Rn.jpg

> It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing.

And a core premise of the Black Lives Matter movement is that Black people are generally an easier target that the police can get away with abusing, and police know this. Police can also typically identify Black people easily on sight, putting them at greater risk. Class is a valuable lens through which to view systems of oppression, but we shouldn't neglect these other dimensions of race, gender, etc... that are clearly a part of our society.

"Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities, corruption, and abuse of power. ... The Black Lives Matter movement was a telling example of this - police brutality is indeed an ongoing problem in society, but it doesn't just apply to black people. It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing. Just look at how they treat homeless people, drug addicts, and so on, regardless of race."

You're not wrong about that. But many people face further oppression based on their race, gender, and sexuality, in addition to wealth and class.

> Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities

Yes, and almost none of the people founding startups in Silicon Valley are oppressed by any reasonable understanding that concept.

none of the people founding startups in Silicon Valley are oppressed by any reasonable understanding that concept

I’ve never understood why they are so desperate to be oppressed that they have to invent new categories to be part of then claim to be oppressed when literally no one even knows what they are.

But the Black Lives Matter movement never proclaimed that police brutality only applies to Black people.

Consider that it's common for anyone who suggests the impoverished of any race are more susceptible to police violence to be quickly and roundly piled on for trying to erase race or for supposedly engaging in “pity poor whites” rhetoric. It doesn’t even matter if “and impoverished black people even more so” is included. The fact that one isn’t solely focused on the racial minority in this context is grounds enough for social scorn and ridicule.

There is a very real problem with “oppression olympics” centered on racial identity, in this country.

The statement

> The impoverished of any race are more susceptible to police violence, and impoverished Black people even more so

is true. But the statement

> Black people of all economic classes are more susceptible to police violence

is also true. There is no logical contradiction between the two. Therefore, when someone responds to the second statement with the first, their response carries the connotation that the first statement is somehow "more true". It implicitly minimizes the struggle of Black people.

Not everyone who makes the first statement in response to the second intends minimize the struggle of Black people, but I think in the majority of cases that is exactly what they intend to do.

It's not even about making the statement in response, as you suggest.

There is no contradiction between the two, but only one of them is considered socially acceptable in certain circles, these days, in any context. That's problematic.

The title kinda implies it.

I don't know why people keep adding "Only" in front of "Black Lives Matter".

I have heard conservatives get on board if the word ‘all’ is added before.

Because proclaiming that all lives matter was interpreted often and publicly as racist against black people.

Well you instantly become a white supremacism if you say "All Lives Matter" so you can't blame people for feeling like they're getting mixed signals.

Because that catchphrase started in reaction to Black Lives Matter, and is used largely to signal opposition to the goal of constraining police actions. If people were holding All Lives Matter protests in opposition to police violence of all kinds, I doubt they'd get much flak; instead, they're protesting the idea that black lives matter.

Just because you say it means something to those people, doesn’t mean it means that to them. You don’t get to choose the hidden meaning behind other peoples words, and you’re clearly giving them the least charitable interpretation

Because when you point out the group that is MOST likely to be killed in a police encounter is Native Americans, you are branded a racist. https://lakota-prod.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/Nativ...

Yes they did. And they actively targeted people who stood up for Asian lives or "All Lives Matter"

All of the "All Lives Matter" people I've interacted with have been trying to minimize the problems.

> The Black Lives Matter movement was a telling example of this - police brutality is indeed an ongoing problem in society, but it doesn't just apply to black people. It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing. Just look at how they treat homeless people, drug addicts, and so on, regardless of race.

And if you actually stuck around in leftist circles you would see how the "indentarians" as you so called them are in opposition to those, too.

> First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this?

Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!

I think you've essentially misunderstood why there was a push against solely class-based analysis, and why identity-specific systemic oppression was introduced to this concept -- the two are not in opposition. The reason it was brought in was because measures to deconstruct and eliminate class-based oppression, often kept systemic inequality between identity.

For example, the push to eliminate sexism has for the most part only advantaged white women (You'll have to trust me on the proof for this since I'm writing this while on the go -- however look up books like Carceral Capitalism and "Why I Don't Talk To White People About Race" for examples). The introduction of how your identity impacts how class boundaries affect you was necessary to better understand the dynamics and better shed and cast off systems of oppression

I can see your comment in the context of democratic party circles, but not leftist circles, at least in the US. I have difficulty placing it in the leftist circles I run in, which generally view politics in the US as consisting of a center/far right party (democrats) and reactionary fascists (republicans).

> Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!

I'm quite skeptical of this claim. For the most part the people pushing race and gender identity narratives in the US had at best mild criticism of Ms. Harris, and were mainly focused on her multi-racial identity and its historical significance. Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.

> I have difficulty placing it in the leftist circles I run in, which generally view politics in the US as consisting of a center/far right party (democrats) and reactionary fascists (republicans).

The same view shared by myself and my fellow 'intersectional-ists'. I haven't heard of anyone aside from 'centrists' and fascists that adopt a different viewpoint? Perhaps there is a subset of fools on breadtube or facebook, sure, but they are vastly outnumbered.

> Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.

Well then your lenses are vastly, vastly different to mine, and do not match up with both those in modern academic circles (Like, literally just read any new literature covering intersectionality and the introduction of it to communism), those on the ground in protests, and those present in progressive/queer groups (like me). It's worth noting that at the moment there is a huge divide between "progressive" communists, and, well, "regressive" communists (For want of better terms). From what I observed from stalking facebook commie groups, most of the latter are still stuck with 100 year old debates -- and while they have a huge amount of theoretical knowledge, they have no practical contributions to any revolutionary movements thusfar. For example, most of the discussion I observed was focused on rehabilitating Stalin's image, whereas most of the 'on the ground' antifacist-aligned folks are of the mind that that isn't really something modern communism should waste it's time on.

I would suggest at least reading some modern intersectional writing, if only to better understand the thing you're arguing against. The basic focus of intersectionality and how the systemic abuse created by late-stage capitalism impacts specific groups differently (The 'intersection' of those groups and the oppression they face), and how movements (even revolutionary) to improve conditions have backfired have been around for at least 60 years if Tony Cliff's 1978 writing "Why Socialists Should Support Gays" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.ht...) is anything to go by -- at least if you will give me the small leeway of temporarily ignoring how controversial Tony Cliff is as a figure in Communism.

If you are in search of one of the progressive communities I talk of, Something Awful has recently (last 5ish years) turned into a very leftist-heavy place, with frequent debate about neoliberalism, capitalism, etc. You will be able to ask questions there and receive answers and engage in productive discussion.

'Disease and Disaster' (Debate and Discussion): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4...

And 'C-SPAM' (The politics subforum): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2...

Are both good places to talk about this with progressive, mostly-intersectional communists. Just take note a lot of the thread titles are in jest, you should navigate to the last five pages and pick up context as you go (A lot of the threads have been running since 2016!) and espousing neoliberalism in an annoying way is a swift path to a probation :)

Communism isn't a synonym for leftism. There is plenty of debate regarding the merits of intersectionalism. I wouldn't call it rigorous or academic, as neither intersectionalists nor many of the people who find it objectionable are particularly analytical, and their resistance to empirical methods isn't particularly inspiring.

Suffice it to say that I don't think you're on as solid intellectual footing as you think you are.

I have stairs in my house, too, by the way. SA has always had a pseudo-leftist bent, even when we were passing around videos of 9/11 set to the tune of Benny Hill. I have a few photoshop friday entries, in fact, if that's still a thing. D&D is the self-absorbed, ego-driven SA analog of stoners marveling over their own hands at 1am at the local Denny's. No thanks.