Registered On: September 7, 2015
Thanks BPG. Hadn’t noticed it. I wasn’t surprised, Deerey, that you hadn’t seen ..or see no problem with ….the proliferation of evidence that BLM has an anti-Capitalist agenda. I was a little more surprised, BRI, that you were so dismissive. Happy to dip my toes in and have a chat .. unless, of course, the only show in town is ideological outrage or a rapid descent into sneering and name calling. Then, as always, I’ll be on my way and leave you to it.
I am dismissive of the idea that the lack of coverage from the BBC means anything. It’s hardly breaking news, so the sneer at the BBC for not covering it is unfounded. There are far more pressing issues than the online culture wars.
As for ‘criticial race theory,’ I’d argue that it does have a place in schools given the focus on ending racism and that this is one proposed idea of ending it. However, it needs to be taught fully, including the flaws for it to have merit. I have huge question marks over its effectiveness and it shouldn’t be taught to kids as the only solution.
BLM are hard to define; most of it is not centralised. Much of it is a vague gathering of people supporting an end to racism against blacks in authority. Of course many of them will be of a left leaning orientation, but there is minimal meaningful structure to them. There are groups who call themselves BLM, without being affiliated to every protester there, even the major ones. From looking at the British group it seems that the people involved with the formalised group are SWP affiliated, so it wouldn’t be unfair to label them as anti-capitalist. The problem is that they only speak for themselves, not every protester as a whole, who follow protests which are more organic. The problem, of course, is that this lack of centralised structure allows groups to form who claim to speak on everyone’s behalf and this creates the impression that it is all about the formed group’s ideology.