Black Lives Matter

Sounds good, but squirming at the sight of footballers kneeling because they're supporting anti-capitalism suggests you didn't understand.

Sounds as if you've got there though.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sounds good, but squirming at the sight of footballers kneeling because they're supporting anti-capitalism suggests you didn't understand.

Sounds as if you've got there though.

I understood from the beginning thank you.

I do find it embarrassing that players actions are linked to a cause to end capitalism - the very thing that given them their extremely privileged lives and their millions.

I also wonder what would happen if any one player or official refused to take the knee because they didn't want to be associated with an organisation they are clearly representing (they are wearing shirts with BLM emblazoned across their backs) who's other objectives they disapprove of?

Nothing at all good for them or their careers I very strongly suspect.

Would I want to be put in such a position.  No.

Would I want anyone I know to be in such a position.  No.

It's an utterly needless and totally preventable position the PL and players have got themselves into - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that.

The PL and players intentions were right, they just in to much of a rush to associate themselves with an organisation that everybody else was doing at the same time, without pausing for one moment to establish if that was their only reason for being - which it was not!

If the PL and players want to end capitalism and get the Jews out of Palestine, then I could understand their actions - but that's not what they intend.

How many people have donated to the crowdfunding of BLM uk too on the same misunderstanding - would they have done it if they thought they were helping to end capitalism and loads of other stuff too - I very much doubt many would.

Anti Racism should be seen to be unambiguous in its aim.

Linking it to BLM and various postures simply clouds and confuses the issue and leaves it vulnerable to criticism, radicalisation and misrepresentation.

The PL and players had the right intention but rushed to follow the crowd.

All they had to do was to show the intent at that of their players by their existing Kick it Out, Anti Racism campaign rather than totally linking itself to one who had a clear agenda far beyond anti racism.

If they and everyone else had not done so we wouldn't even be having such a conversation - we'd all be behind the cause - it's the organisation they've deliberately linked the cause to which is the problem!

Ok, I take it back. You don't get it at all.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ok, I take it back. You don't get it at all.

Nah, all you want is me to keep on arguing with you.

It's completely unambiguous what I've said, namely Anti Racism should stand purely and simply as single objective on its own.

If you link it to stuff that already carries its own baggage like BLM uk, then is it any wonder why people will refer to that baggage such as ending capitalism?

Fwiw even Karl Henry thinks exactly the same -

1 - New slogan, new movement needed - Yes.

Many BLM supporters have gone too far! For some, it was never about tackling racism. For the majority, it was and still is.

Is a new slogan/movement needed? Yes.

Should every Black Lives Matter supporter be labelled a supporter of the far left political organisation? No!

— Karl Henry (@karlhenry08) July 1, 2020

2 - Being (unnecessarily) linked to BLM have cause a huge amount of division and conflict - Yes.

Agreed!

The organisation has caused a huge amount of division.

No anti-racist will ever have a problem with the literal meaning of Black Lives Matter.

Hence the conflict.

— Karl Henry (@karlhenry08) July 1, 2020

Clearly then Karl Henry doesn't get it at all either then does he?

After all he's saying exactly what I have namely keep the Anti Racism cause free of other existing organisations and gestures otherwise you are simply inviting needless confusion and misunderstanding and leaving yourself open to criticism for what others who aren't part of what you are trying to achieve are doing in the name of the same organisation to which you have needlessly attached yourself to.

Jog on and stop playing your games.

I think it’s possible to support the movement and not this organisation, clearly you think that’s too confusing - and a new slogan/name is needed.

I’m cool with that as an endpoint, are you capable of just dropping it and moving on?

Sluffy. For once I think you’re absolute spot on and couldn’t agree more.

So Sluffy and TROY are in total agreement that the cause is completely distinct from the political movement. And they agree that the stated aims of the movement have been hijacked in various places including the UK. And they agree that the two things should be completely separate.

So can somebody explain to me WTF are they whingeing at each other about?

I have a theory.

Let's hear it then.



Also fwiw TROY's not said said (or even accepted the principle) that they should be completely separate entities - which is blindingly obviously that they should.

Troy, I think, or at least gives me the impression of, is of someone immersed in the hard political left thinking/ideology, indeed some of the posts he makes seem to come directly from their latest 'pamphlet' or however they get their message out to their 'comrade brothers' these days.

Each to their own and all that but there is a gap between any political vision and the actual reality of what people are prepared to accept - the recent Corbynista experiment clearly demonstrated that, and that's why the Conservatives are in power and Labour dramatically imploded at the last election - so much so there's no reasonable chance of evening winning the next GE, no matter what the government get up to between now and it in four years time!

His clear leftist dogma even got me wondering what the acronym TROY stands for - Trotsky Revolutionary Organisation Youth might be close although Google tells me that is for a song called They Reminisce Over You?

Who cares anyway.

Nobody has all the right answers and I'm never too old to learn from others.

At least TROY can debate without recoursing to personal abuse and doing so whilst sober.

Which is far more than some can!

No chance

W.E.B. DuBois is little known these days, but is deserving of a wider audience. If you have half an hour to spare, he's well worth the listen.

Sluffy wrote:Also fwiw TROY's not said said (or even accepted the principle) that they should be completely separate entities - which is blindingly obviously that they should.

Nope, you can read as can everyone else - so don't try that. My entire point is that the organisation is separate and the minority's political aims should not be confused with the 'movement' for equality. 

My (poorly worded) first post on the topic says exactly what my point is and that hasn't changed:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It's a right wing tactic to try and class BLM as an organisation, so they can tie a minorities actions to the entire group. It's not it's a movement, it's a movement demanding equality - that is all.

My views would never be classed as hard-left by the way, surprised you think that. Be interested to hear any specifics you think fit that category.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Also fwiw TROY's not said said (or even accepted the principle) that they should be completely separate entities - which is blindingly obviously that they should.

Nope, you can read as can everyone else - so don't try that. My entire point is that the organisation is separate and the minority's political aims should not be confused with the 'movement' for equality. 

My (poorly worded) first post on the topic says exactly what my point is and that hasn't changed:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It's a right wing tactic to try and class BLM as an organisation, so they can tie a minorities actions to the entire group. It's not it's a movement, it's a movement demanding equality - that is all.

My views would never be classed as hard-left by the way, surprised you think that. Be interested to hear any specifics you think fit that category.

At the risk of going around in circles once again - it is not perceived to be two separate things by many, many people, otherwise BLMuk would not have received £1m in crowd funding - on the back of the tsunami of people truly believing they were contributing towards the cause (anti racism) rather than the radical (political) organisation that are both called 'Black Live Matters'.

I doubt most people didn't even KNOW there were the two incarnations of BLM until the media and people like Karl Henry raised the issues of the tweets the political body were making about ending capitalism and Jews out of Palestine - I didn't for one!

Clearly the PL didn't either at that time they committed to putting BLM on all players shirts - or they clearly would not have done so - think about it, the richest funded sports league in the world publicly endorsing an organisation who have pledged to end capitalism???

We on Nuts KNOW the difference now but I'd wager many, many less informed than us are still to this day contributing the 'political' BLM crowdfunding link in the innocent belief that their money is simply going to the anti racism cause and not the funding of the radical agenda of that organisation.

People have been absolutely totally oblivious of the fact - there is no doubt about that.

I believe that many, maybe even the majority, of people who have already contributed still are ignorant of the fact that their donations have gone to an organisation (of the same name) but not solely for that specific cause only.

I guess you could say it isn't BLMuk fault that people have mistakenly given them money thinking it was going to something else of the same name, but they've hardly gone out of their way to make clear to those contributing that they have a list of several other things on their agenda to spend their money on apart from anti racism!

There is a clear need to separate between the two ('Anti Racism cause' and 'political activist group/organisation') and the best way to do that is to have a different name from them and different slogan and postures.

As for you being hard left, well that's from my 'abductive' reasoning of how you post and behave on here (obviously you may be completely different to your persona on Nuts in real life).

So if you apply the 'duck' test... if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quack likes a duck... it's probably a duck!

Power to the people!!!

boltonbonce wrote:W.E.B. DuBois is little known these days, but is deserving of a wider audience. If you have half an hour to spare, he's well worth the listen.

In this interview when he said that ` while there is Human Nature, socialism cannot exist `, he was correct.

Listening to this interview I ccould see, from my own Century, listening to him in his, that the song remains the same. Nothing has changed. This is because Human Nature hasnt changed.

This man was wise in knowledge of Political systems. It would have been easier for us to follow, in parts, if he had relayed things in simplistic terms ( for the layman / woman ) so that we could see exactly what he meant ( due to my comparative ignorance ). I say this, for the reason of wishing to learn about the Political Systems from him. He is too educated on them for my abject knowledge of them to follow.

My personal opinion is that anyone who is anti-racist is better of focussing on how to eradicate racism, than not worrying over whether the organisation name is clear enough. 

Hopefully we can get back to that now.

As for the hard left thing, think you just needed to give some specifics. If you class nationalising rail, increasing taxes on the top band or properly funding public services as 'hard-left' policies, then sure I fit that definition. 

Hard-left tends to be used in a disapproving way though, so my advice would be to consider what it is you mean before using it. Not something to throw around with no real thought.

Reading through DuBois` Wiki, he was involved in the founding of the NAACP in 1909.

I glanced through his wiki. I didnt read it with an Apple, as have things I need to do, and learn, here and there today.
I like to set realistic goals and achieve them. I shall come back to DuBois in good time.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:My personal opinion is that anyone who is anti-racist is better of focussing on how to eradicate racism, than not worrying over whether the organisation name is clear enough. 

Hopefully we can get back to that now.

As for the hard left thing, think you just needed to give some specifics. If you class nationalising rail, increasing taxes on the top band or properly funding public services as 'hard-left' policies, then sure I fit that definition. 

Hard-left tends to be used in a disapproving way though, so my advice would be to consider what it is you mean before using it. Not something to throw around with no real thought.

And my view is that BLMuk is probably £1m better off thanks to people not even realising there were two different 'things' which shared the same 'name' and the 'cause' £1m short of what it could have had to fight Anti Racism in this country here and now!


Unless I'm mistaken the term 'hard-left' is NOT offensive and is in common usage and can often be seen or heard in daily media.

I'm sure you care absolutely nothing about if I approved or disapproved of whatever political stance you take - and to be frank I really don't care a toss where you see yourself on the political spectrum.

Fwiw I am a socialist at heart, I would agree with all the examples you state above, but I'm also a realist and know to achieve such aims you have to be able to fund them.

I've lived and worked through many such political eras from the Harold Wilson years of the early 1960's and have thus seen both sides of politics, 'socialism' v 'capitalism' - and the effects that they have on this country.

I've seen them both fail too.

There is no simple answer under a two part democracy system that we've had in all that time and I've seen 'collectivism/communism' and multiparty politics (in places like Italy/France/NL, etc) fail also.

Dictatorships of the left (Venezuela) and right (Argentina) as well as the powerful (Libya, Iraq, Philippines, Zimbabwe etc) have all come and gone in my time and do we really want to live under the current ones in Russia, China, Saudi, etc?

My opinion for all that is worth is that nothing works, so why bother getting het up about politics at all? (I could also add the same is true for religion too!).

That's just me though.

People still play the game and the results are always the same.

Live your dreams because as John Maynard Keynes once said - "in the long run we are all dead".

I've got more important things to me to get on with than bothering about politics, perhaps one day you will come to see my point of view - but somehow I just don't think you ever will.

sunlight wrote:Reading through DuBois` Wiki, he was involved in the founding of the NAACP in 1909.

I glanced through his wiki. I didnt read it with an Apple, as have things I need to do, and learn, here and there today.
I like to set realistic goals and achieve them. I shall come back to DuBois in good time.

One of MLK's most impressive speeches, in my opinion. Stick it on your things to listen to list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOWDtDUKz-U

The 12 year old racially abusing Zaha is shocking, the only place that child has learned such views must be from his parents.

Even now with the focus on equality, this incident and McGoldrick at Sheffield United as well just shows how things are not really changing and there is still a lot of work to be done. Trouble is there will always be a minority of brain dead idiots around who get the most publicity.

I despair at times, what goes through someones head to think being racist is acceptable in this day and age?

Black players are abused just for being black. This is much more complicated, and I'm not sure why he's trying to compare the two situations.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/14/james-mcclean-says-he-gets-more-abuse-than-any-other-player-but-no-support-stoke