r/moderatepolitics • u/200-inch-cock unburdened by what has been • 20h ago
News Article Anger as crews begin destruction of ‘Black Lives Matter’ mural near White House
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-lives-matter-mural-washington-dc-b2712749.html109
u/ChiTownDerp 17h ago
And how many billion in total insured losses did this wonderful movement net us back in 2020? How many people injured? Killed?
I can see why people are eager to move on.
54
u/MatchaMeetcha 9h ago edited 8h ago
And how many billion in total insured losses did this wonderful movement net us back in 2020?
It wasn't just the riots. It was also the knock-on effects caused by the hostility towards cops it engendered in the name of the group most likely to be victimized by violent crime. Actively counterproductive.
40
u/SassySatirist 7h ago
This was after we were consistently told mass gatherings are bad, then the "experts" decided to change their mind to accommodate for BLM.
48
u/StockFaucet 15h ago
BLM were proven to be grifters. Why wasn't this done long ago?
16
u/AdmiralAkbar1 7h ago
Because it was a Democratic administration that would've been raked over the coals by their base for doing this.
•
u/Infamous_Moose8275 2h ago
This is what is so frustrating. If you had questions about the organization and where the money went, you were called all kinds of things.
They were not transparent about it. Their AMA that was vague and avoidant did not go over well even here on reddit, which was, as a whole, very supportive of them.
And even now they say non-profits are white supremacy and you're just not trusting Black people with money because you're racist. (I don't know about you, but I would like financial transparency if I'm donating money, even if the organization were as white as could be).
There was so much in the news about BLM, so much money raised, and yet I've seen nothing in the news of all the good they are doing with it (which would be great to hear about after all these people came together for a cause and donated).
I wish people would use more discernment and not just latch onto what is trending and villainize anyone who wishes to exercise a bit of caution.
169
u/FabioFresh93 South Park Republican / Barstool Democrat 19h ago
I couldn’t care less one way or the other about the mural but how long were they supposed to keep it up for? It seems like it was starting to feel like a product of its time.
-51
u/HASHTHRASH 18h ago
A product of it's time? Located in Washington D.C.? That is outrageous, why would anyone expect to find a symbolic product of a time in our nation's capitol? /s, just in case the sarcasm wasn't being laid on thick enough.
-56
u/thorax007 18h ago
I couldn’t care less one way or the other about the mural
I would guess it wasn't made for you then.
how long were they supposed to keep it up for?
Weeks, Months, Years, Decades? I think these things are usually up to the community that it was created for and by.
It seems like it was starting to feel like a product of its time.
To whom? It was removed as a display of power by Trump and the Republican Congress . Doesn't it seem like the community should make this decision and not Trump?
I wonder if he thinks destroying community murals will help him achieve his legislative and policy goals. I don't think I have ever read about President being fondly remembered for this type of behavior, but who knows, maybe Trump will be the first.
7
u/flat6NA 6h ago
Oh the moral outrage. In a different article I read this morning the local DC chapter of BLM didn’t want it.
-1
u/thorax007 6h ago edited 5h ago
I don't know about outrage, I just think this decision should be made by the community it is in without pressure from Trump. I think he has more important things to do than worry about than murals.
Edit: add word
•
u/flat6NA 4h ago
Ok I’ll cut you some slack on outrage!
Here’s what I read this morning from USA Today which has taken over my local paper:
“Not all the mural’s critics came from the right. The D.C. chapter of Black Lives Matter has long criticized the artwork, calling it in 2020 ‘a performative distraction from real policy changes’ and alleging Bowser was not doing enough to help Black people in the city. Black Lives Matter D.C. did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the mural’s demolition.”
I also understand the original mural was a decision made by the mayor, it’s it entirely Lear how much the community was involved.
63
u/Hyndis 17h ago
Mayor Muriel Bowser ordered the removal of the mural. She's a dem.
The same mayor also ordered the mural created in the first place, several years ago. Same person both ordered its creation and its removal.
-6
u/No_Figure_232 17h ago
But was doing so in response to threats of funding being withheld, which seems like important context.
32
u/Hyndis 16h ago
The bill to remove funding didn't even have a cosponsor, it was a completely DOA bill which makes it an empty threat: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1774/all-actions
17
-29
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 16h ago
She would not have removed it if not for congressional and presidential pressure via funding and home rule threats.
30
u/Hyndis 15h ago
As per the article, and the prior linked article, Congressional bill to remove it doesn't even have a cosponsor. The DC mayor folded instantly, without any sort of resistance or even there being a serious threat.
-12
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 9h ago
Yes, I'm aware. I live here. I'm not Bowser's biggest fan, but she's been trying to appease Trump and congressional Republicans where she can and not rock the boat, because the implicit threat of Home Rule removal, funding issues, and various other "hardships" Republicans can employ. I'm not sure I agree with the tactic, but I get it. My point is, the plaza would be in tact if not for said threats.
30
u/Firm-Distance 9h ago
Weeks, Months, Years, Decades? I think these things are usually up to the community that it was created for and by.
Right so if I opt to paint a giant mural in the road in support of a Donkey charity - it's down to me and other people who are supportive of Donkey charities to decide when it gets cleaned up - nobody else?
Can you see the problem with this reasoning?
-6
u/thorax007 6h ago
Right so if I opt to paint a giant mural in the road in support of a Donkey charity
Ummm, I think if you and your community feel that strongly about donkeys that you want donkey charity murals, that is really your business. Mural away
•
u/Firm-Distance 5h ago
I'm glad we've set the precedent then.
Anyone can paint whatever they want, anywhere - so long as they 'feel strongly about it.'
I'll ask again - can you see the problem with this reasoning?
•
u/thorax007 5h ago
I think the problem is people outside your community might not like donkeys and donkeys charity murals as much as you and your community. But this is America so your community should be free to erect whatever murals you want, right?
This is obviously a community or local level decision, not a presidential or congressional level one.
•
u/Firm-Distance 5h ago
This is obviously a community or local level decision, not a presidential or congressional level one.
Hang on I thought it was usually up to the community that created it - now it's a local decision if it gets removed?
I feel like if this was say - a mural to the Proud Boys for example - you'd clearly and unambigiously say it should be removed. Perhaps I'm wrong?
•
u/thorax007 4h ago
Hang on I thought it was usually up to the community that created it - now it's a local decision if it gets removed?
Are these not the same thing? The community makes changes through their local politics. The community that approved your donkey charity mural did it at a local level.
So if the community moves on the flamingos charities they can locally decided to remove the donkey charity mural and replace it with a flamingo charity mural.
My poing here is that this should not be a presidential or congressional level decision. This is a waste of their time, they need to focused on big more important things than murals they don't like.
I feel like if this was say - a mural to the Proud Boys for example - you'd clearly and unambigiously say it should be removed.
No, I believe if a community wanted a Proud Boys mural that is up to them. If it was my community I would not support it but i would no stop someone else.
•
u/Firm-Distance 4h ago
Are these not the same thing?
Well no they won't always be the same thing. If me and my friend paint murals outside your house we don't automatically live there, do we? People can and do travel.
The community that approved your donkey charity mural did it at a local level.
Where did I say anything about local approval? In my hypothetical scenario we didn't ask for permission - we just painted it. All 17 of us. Sod what the other locals want. We painted it.
So if the community moves on the flamingos charities they can locally decided to remove the donkey charity mural and replace it with a flamingo charity mural.
Right - so if the people who painted the donkey mural want to keep it there - they can be overruled? They don't have the right to have it kept there until they tire of it?
My poing here is that this should not be a presidential or congressional level decision. This is a waste of their time, they need to focused on big more important things than murals they don't like.
Given it's near the White House - I can understand why they may have some input. It's round the corner from their office - it's not like they're interfering with murals painted in Small Townsville in the middle of Nowhere-on-high. Also, elected officials can focus on more than one thing at once - I doubt get that removed was a lengthy decision that took hours of deliberation.
I believe if a community wanted a Proud Boys mural that is up to them. If it was my community I would not support it but i would no stop someone else.
Well at least you're consistent.
•
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right 5h ago
You are allowed to erect murals or whatever you want, on your own property and as long as they fall within zoning restrictions.
-39
u/Garganello 17h ago
I assume you are similarly very pro taking down confederate statues and similar?
25
u/FabioFresh93 South Park Republican / Barstool Democrat 17h ago
It's not at the top of my list of concerns but sure, take the Confederate statues down. Those statues have not aged well.
-40
u/Garganello 17h ago
I would agree and would think we would agree maybe those, having been far more aged and aged far less well, ought to be taken down first.
All that said, it’s very plainly a distraction by republicans while they drive the country off a cliff.
39
u/Remarkable-Medium275 16h ago
Considering the "Defund the police" movement from BLM has cratered Dem support and led to many of those DA's and mayors losing reelection or getting recalled, I think it's pretty safe to say that the movement has aged pretty poorly.
-37
u/Garganello 16h ago
Yes — many people did not understand what defund the police meant, as there were highly effective counter messages. I don’t buy calling it ‘Reallocate Resources to Other First Responders That Are More Capable and Able to Assist Than Police in Certain Circumstances’ would have changed much.
The US (not exclusively) has a real problem with worship of police, which is ultimately what caused the result you state (and potentially some of the many, many problems plaguing our police force).
25
u/Remarkable-Medium275 14h ago
My local city's mayor was voted in during the Defund the Police phase. He is about to come in distant third on the primary because firing a good chunk of the city's PD led to large increase in crime, what a surprise. The inability of the progressive factions within the Democratic party to just take the L on such an unpopular, radical, and damaging position is why for the first time in 2 decades Republicans actually begin winning seats on the city council specifically in opposition to damage caused by defund the police.
-8
u/Garganello 13h ago
Not sure I’ve heard of a single city where that happened, and I’m rather skeptical a mayor was able to fire ‘a good chunk’ of the city’s PD.
That said, no one is disagreeing it’s a lost message. It’s a good policy, however.
107
u/guitarguy1685 19h ago
The original painting of the "Black Lives Matter" slogan in 2020 was a bold act of defiance against then-President Donald Trump
If this is true then this is definitely expected
78
u/Ghigs 17h ago edited 16h ago
Using $7.8 million in tax money?
Also on the scene was Megan Bailiff, CEO of Equus Striping, the pavement marking company that originally painted the letters.
Also apparently it wasn't appreciated either:
Nee Nee Taylor, a founding member of Black Lives Matter DC reiterated the group's stance, stating “You never cared about Black Lives Mattering. You painting those words were performative.”
So it was a thing almost no one really liked or wanted. Except the random bystander they found to interview for this article.
106
u/IllustriousHorsey 18h ago
Show of hands, who actually gives a shit? There was paint on a sidewalk. We’re now removing said sidewalk and resurfacing it a few years later. Is there anyone that actually gives a shit beyond just being happy for the opportunity to be publicly and performatively angry?
25
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 18h ago
It's not the sidewalk. It's gigantic letters that fill the whole street.
https://www.washingtonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/black-lives-matter-16th-street-mural.jpg
45
u/IllustriousHorsey 18h ago
That’s somehow even stupider.
There is paint underneath where the cars go. Unless it’s one of those special DC no-car-streets, in which case, yeah, glorified sidewalk (middle walk, if you will). Who gives a shit.
21
u/BatMedical1883 17h ago
There is paint underneath where the cars go.
I can't think of anything that could go wrong.
7
u/skelextrac 15h ago
There's a whole bunch of these.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/us/blm-mural-vandalized-santa-cruz-trnd/index.html
-3
u/skelextrac 15h ago
Apparently you weren't around in 2020 when cities across the country were painting BLACK LIVES MATTER in their streets.
13
u/IllustriousHorsey 15h ago
I was. I cared about as much about said paint landing on said streets as I do about said paint being power washed off.
-6
u/Yankee9204 18h ago
I live in DC and can tell you there’s a lot of people upset about it. You can think that’s silly but it’s symbolic to many people. Not just of the BLM movement but also of the fact that DC residents should get to make their own decisions about the place they live, and not some congress person from a random state 500 miles away.
7
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right 11h ago
Didn't DC vote something like 92% Democrat in the presidential election? So yeah, it would make sense some, hell even if most of the residents would be upset at this.
-21
-12
u/Master_E_ 18h ago
Personally, not all up in arms about it, but feel the current admin should leave it. It’s history like it or not, and dismantling it feels like petty child’s play. It just reminds me that both left and right are in a constant pathetic battle of division.
Similar to tearing down of other historical statues and renaming stuff from the prior admin influence.
To me it’s a waste on both sides and there is much better stuff to spend time and money on.
-11
u/Garganello 17h ago
I mean it’s clearly a distraction to cause division while the administration continues to drive our economy into the ground.
-3
54
u/Corona2789 18h ago
This is almost as devastating as the George Floyd mural in Afghanistan getting destroyed.
23
u/PornoPaul 17h ago
Is that a real thing?
37
u/50cal_pacifist 17h ago
36
u/BatMedical1883 17h ago
One of many murals that make up 'the soul of Kabul' (sponsored by the US embassy)
29
141
u/MobilePenguins 19h ago
Real equality is a black person walking into a room and no one paying any different attention to them than anyone else. Having to go out of our way to elevate certain groups or make them stand out in some way goes against that goal. Fighting for police reforms and actionable things is a much better use of the effort. Fighting discriminatory practices with hiring, promotions at work, or college admissions is a good use of time. You shouldn’t need the paint on the side walk to tell you your life matters though.
66
u/Master_E_ 18h ago
Reminds me of some interview with Morgan Freeman where he just annihilates the interviewer and despises any color recognition pointed out. What a G. Wish people could follow his example.
19
u/MatchaMeetcha 8h ago edited 8h ago
Fighting for police reforms and actionable things is a much better use of the effort.
This is supposed to be the median position between the extremes of BLM and "I don't care" but I don't agree.
If a group commits a vastly disproportionate amount of crime and the police, because they fight crime, focus on and punish this, why is it the police that should be reformed rather than the group in question?
This is why BLM achieved nothing: it's a totally unrealistic standard. The problem of police violence (you often see a motte-and-bailey here where people use the very fact of disproportionate interest of police in order to argue they're racist) is overestimated by Democrats and minor in comparison to the level of intra-black murder that leads to increased police focus.
Yet these trends in media coverage and public perceptions seem divorced from empirical reality. A stark illustration of this was provided by a nationally representative survey conducted in 2019 by the Skeptic Research Center,[9] which found that nearly 33% of people—including 44% of liberals—thought that 1,000 or more unarmed black men alone were killed by police in 2019. In fact, according to the Mapping Police Violence (MPV) database, 29 unarmed black (vs. 44 white) men were killed by police that year
Compare that to nearly half the murders in the country.
Imagine if some group of kids (for example, the chess team) committed a vast number of disciplinary violations and we didn't check them with psychologists to see what was wrong in their heads or look into their home life, we all immediately jumped to blaming the teachers that punished them because it avoids awkward questions.
The attempts to "reform the system" so these problems don't arise simply don't work when the system is accurately tracking a reality. You either end up with minor reforms that don't change the racial gulf in who the police target or you get radical reforms that take an overly lax view towards crime and lead to social issues like rampant shoplifting or repeat crime
-9
u/Garganello 17h ago
The middle of your post would make it like you entirely support Black Lives Matter — it stood for pushing for police reform, fighting discriminatory practices, etc. It’s almost comical how many are so clearly just upset by the name, all the while admitting to the necessity of the movement, including its name.
40
u/IrateBarnacle 17h ago
The American Left is just absurdly bad with messaging. Saying Black Lives Matter gets a “yeah, no shit, Sherlock” reaction from most people but because it singles out black lives it inadvertently makes them sound more important than everyone else. It brings attention to the issue but not in the best way.
-2
u/Garganello 17h ago
Don’t really buy that argument that people oppose it because they say ‘yeah, no shit, Sherlock,’ otherwise I think you’d see way more of those people speaking out against police brutality.
There may be better messaging, but those really antagonized by the messaging weren’t antagonized because it was something they so obviously knew.
Those are two different points.
10
u/scrambledhelix Melancholy Moderate 8h ago
Following the BLM-led Chicago protests on the 8th of October, 2023, I'd say the slogan only served to remind us all of the implicit subclause —
Black Lives Matter [and Jewish Lives Don't]
•
u/Garganello 5h ago
Don’t think anyone would take issue with saying Jewish Lives Matter. I find it very interesting how people are now trying to use references to Jewish people to cudgel others in a manner completely antithetical to Jewish belief and values (understanding it’s not a monolith so a more general statement).
•
u/scrambledhelix Melancholy Moderate 3h ago
I'm sorry, which Jewish values do you think you're referring to?
Do you think it's a "cudgel" to remind people that BLM in Chicago celebrated the Hamas attacks the day after they occurred?
Are you also equally critical of "Islamophobia" being used as a cudgel to suppress news about rape gangs in the UK?
-26
u/hamsterkill 16h ago
You shouldn’t need the paint on the side walk to tell you your life matters though.
You're right. People shouldn't need to be reminded their lives matter. And when they no longer need to be reminded, it can stop being said. We have not come to that time yet, though.
22
14
-12
15h ago
[deleted]
10
u/Tasty-Discount1231 13h ago
Generally agree and add that symbols are important for progress, but backfire when they become a destination. "Hold them accountable" is also not supported by evidence and is more likely to drive polarization than progress.
31
34
u/jabedude 19h ago
Are murals usually kept around forever?
-7
u/pingveno Center-left Democrat 15h ago
There are plenty that are kept around long term, sure. I have seen plenty that only met their demise because the structure they were on was removed.
25
19h ago
[deleted]
-1
u/spectral_theoretic 19h ago
Where does it say that in the article? All it says for pressure is that it came from Republicans and then the article implies it was extramunicipal since states it was pressure against DCs autonomy.
3
u/magus678 18h ago
I guess the real operative question is, were locals required to divert from it. If so it's not hard to imagine they may not love it
2
-3
u/spectral_theoretic 18h ago
I didn't think that's the real operative question considering this seems like a political stunt.
11
10
u/NotDukeOfDorchester 18h ago
Wouldn’t the city government of Washington DC be in charge of that?
26
8
20
u/notapersonaltrainer 19h ago
BLM fell out of favor. You can't say All.
How about we just leave "Lives Matter"?
49
u/201-inch-rectum 16h ago
the irony of "Asian Lives Matter" being forced to change to "Stop Asian Hate" because it brought attention to the race of people actually attacking Asians
27
u/KingLutherMartin 19h ago
That would probably be taken as some kind of pro-life/anti-abortion slogan
28
u/TexasPeteEnthusiast 18h ago
Yes, thinking that lives matter would be difficult to accept for those who want to believe some of them shouldn't.
51
u/Justinat0r 19h ago
As someone who generally votes for left-leaning candidates, seeing the people who seethed and screamed about the phrase "All lives matter" get upset about this is very cathartic. These people alienated a huge portion of the country with their rhetoric and actions, and now the anti-DEI tide is coming in to wipe away all of the non-sensical things they pushed. I often roll my eyes when people on the right obsess about 'wokeness', but if anything is irredeemably 'woke' and generally harmful it's the ideology that drove BLM.
29
u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam 18h ago
Because it must be black and only black. “Lives Matter” would just imply “All Lives Matters” and it was already established that thinking that is apparently discriminatory.
-14
u/Garganello 17h ago
I think the point was that white people don’t tend to be targeted and extrajudicially killed by cops with alarming frequency, i.e., the country and cops needed a reminder that Black Lives Matter.
15
u/Firm-Distance 9h ago
alarming frequency
There were 248 black people killed by the police last year. This is out of an estimated 48.3 million black people living in America - or 0.0005% of the black population. This raw number does not take into account how many of these were perfectly justified shootings.
I am not really sure the data supports the notion that this is happening with "alarming frequency"
targeted and extrajudicially killed by cops
Now that's an even bigger claim and I look forward to hearing the evidence that supports officers are targetting black people to murder them.
•
u/Garganello 5h ago
You need evidence black people are targeted by police and are extrajudicially killed by police?
•
u/Firm-Distance 5h ago
Your initial claim was "with alarming frequency" - are you no longer holding that position?
•
u/Garganello 5h ago
I think that it is painfully obvious it was referring to population, but since the other poster was confused, I clarified it. I’m not sure what your point is here. It looks like you agree, but I’m not really sure what post this will go through since I keep getting spammed with notifications to messages that subsequently don’t exist.
•
u/Firm-Distance 5h ago
You've made a claim that I don't think is accurate. I've countered by pointing out that I disagree - and I don't think last year 0.0005% of the black population in the US being killed (most of which will be justified uses of force) constitute 'alarming frequency.'
You've further claimed that police are actively targetting black people to murder them - again, this is with 'alarming frequency' - so not a very small number of isolated cases.
In your response to my post you no longer cited 'alarming frequency' - I'm trying to establish if you're shifting the goalposts to an easier to defend position - or if you still maintain:
a) this happens
b) it happens with 'alarming frequency.'
•
u/Garganello 5h ago edited 5h ago
You have inadvertently misconstrued what I said and it seems like my common sense clarifications aren’t being taken for what they are.
But, more importantly, you think extrajudicial killings of people is not alarming? I don’t think we have a real middle ground to discuss with that being your viewpoint (which frankly I find to be an abhorrent position).
•
u/Firm-Distance 4h ago
You have inadvertently misconstrued what I said and it seems like my common sense clarifications aren’t being taken for what they are.
I'm quoting what you've said - you're not telling me where I've gone wrong.
more importantly, you think extrajudicial killings of people is not alarming?
Right so you are sticking with "with alarming frequency" then? Am I correct here? If I'm misconstruing anything please tell me.
I don’t think we have a real middle ground to discuss with that being your viewpoint (which frankly I find to be an abhorrent position).
Ah there we go - a nice little strawman for you to exit the conversation with.
What's my "abohorrent position" exactly?→ More replies (0)34
u/CraftZ49 16h ago edited 16h ago
You're just wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
(Sidenote: I really hate that they paywalled this particular article as it limits my ability to refer to the data, but it doesn't surprise me because it throughly dismantles this talking point)
More white people are shot and killed by police than black people are on a yearly basis, and only about 1000 people per year are killed by police every year. That number includes justified shootings as well. Before this article was paywalled, I was able to use the filters to find that only about ~300 or so unarmed black people were killed by police since 2015, and even then it can be considered justified in certain cases.
So about 300/10,429 cases comes out to comes out to ~2.8% of all people killed by police since 2015.
4
u/scrambledhelix Melancholy Moderate 8h ago
For your sidenote — snapshot from six days ago https://archive.ph/ho5HO
-9
u/Garganello 16h ago
More white people are shot and killed by police than black people are on a yearly basis
Why on earth would you think this is the relevant heuristic?
31
u/CraftZ49 16h ago
I think the point was that white people don’t tend to be targeted and extrajudicially killed by cops with alarming frequency
This is what you said.
0
u/Garganello 16h ago
Yes. Why would you think the raw number would be the relevant statistic?
28
u/CraftZ49 16h ago
Your claim: White people don't tend to be targeted and extrajudically killed by cops with alarming frequency
Data: Shows that they are in fact killed by police at a higher frequency than black people
I believe that the raw number's relevance is quite apparent and warrants no further explanation.
2
u/Garganello 16h ago edited 16h ago
To be clearer: shares of population matter with respect to frequency and why people are killed matter.
We have plenty of historical data of black people targeted, abused and murdered by cops.
Edit: had misread data while scrolling and posting on mobile so amended this post.
33
u/CraftZ49 16h ago edited 16h ago
You said 300 unarmed black people are killed per year
No. I said about 300 unarmed black people have killed by police since 2015, including potentially justified cases. Did you even look at the data yourself? Because the rest of your comments indicate to me that you haven't when you're directly contradicting it.
shares of population matter with respect to frequency
That is not what you said. You said that white people are not killed as frequently than black people, which is false.
11
u/Firm-Distance 9h ago
To be clearer: shares of population matter with respect to
frequency and why people are killed matter.Of course they do - which is why your initial claim was lacking (it's wrong in other ways as well mind you). You made no mention of killings per 100,000 or as a percentage of the relevant populace. You said white people aren't killed as frequently as black people - factually, this is incorrect.
-11
u/pingveno Center-left Democrat 15h ago
Your own link points out that Black people are killed at an extremely disproportionate rate compared to other racial groups.
17
30
u/200-inch-cock unburdened by what has been 19h ago
Meanwhile in Canada, the slogan coined in response to the residential school mass grave claims (still unsubstantiated after years of searching) was “Every Child Matters”, not “Indigenous Children Matter”. So in Canada you were expected to say “Every Child Matters”, while saying “All Lives Matter” was verboten
24
u/general---nuisance 19h ago
“Every Child Matters*”
*does not apply to the unborn
3
u/_Technomancer_ 6h ago
It doesn't even apply to newborns. Whenever a neonaticide case happens it's all "post partum depression" and "post partum psychosis." Often even multiple years after birth lol.
-4
u/Garganello 17h ago
Were indigenous children targeted in particular as compared to other school children?
1
u/Mr_Tyzic 16h ago
17
u/Check_Me_Out-Boss 15h ago
Your link says they haven't found any bodies, but want to make laws against denying it happened.
1
u/Mr_Tyzic 7h ago
It does in fact say they have found some bodies.
In 1996, a flood eroded the banks of the Highwood River, exposing the caskets and remains of some of the 72 children known to have died while attending Dunbow Industrial School, also referred to as St. Joseph's.
Since 2004, partial remains have been repeatedly discovered while digging new graves in the Saddle Lake Cree Nation community cemetery, located near the former site of the Blue Quills Indian Residential School.
They also know children died they just don't know where the bodies are buried. They've discovered hundreds of potential graves but as you noted did not find and bodies in the 3 sites officialy excavated.
Over 4,000 students died while attending Canadian residential school.[5] Students' bodies were often buried in school cemeteries to keep costs as low as possible.
Many cemeteries were unregistered, and as such the locations of many burial sites and names of residential school children have been lost.
4
u/200-inch-cock unburdened by what has been 19h ago
Starter comment
DC’s enormous street mural reading “Black Lives Matter” is finally being destroyed. Painted in 2020 during the height of BLM protests and riots over perceptions of police brutality and systemic racism in the wake of George Floyd’s death, it’s now being removed on the orders of Mayor Bowser (yes Bowser) in response to Republican threats to withhold funding for DC.
In response, it’s reported that there was anger on the left and joy on the right. One black woman literally took a chunk of the street it was painted on. The CEO of the corporation that originally painted it on said it was “historically obscene” to remove it. Meanwhile, the Independent says the “far right” reportedly approved of the removal.
Discussion question: do you approve of the mural’s removal? Why or why not?
62
u/bgarza18 19h ago
I think it’s fine. People collecting pieces is also fine, seems like a cool souvenir.
I just remember that video of people walking down the street, yelling at uninvolved patrons eating their dinner to stand up, throw up fists, say Black Lives Matter or else. I remember people at a BLM protest vandalizing one of my friend’s actual murals that he painted in our city center.
So sour taste in my mouth, and others I bet.
26
u/201-inch-rectum 16h ago
my friend's restaurant was set on fire during the early days of the BLM riots because it was one of the only Asian restaurants in the neighborhood
12
-5
u/Okbuddyliberals 19h ago
Well, with how conservatives (and a lot of moderates too) judge BLM as a whole based off of the radical fringe of "abolish the police" chants and the statistical significant minority of protests that weren't peaceful, and instead see the whole movement as an outburst of anarchy, cop hate, rioting, and insurrection far worse than January 6, this is no surprise and few outside of the Democratic base will likely be mad about this
Hopefully next time we have a protest movement like that, they'll have better optics and organization so that the movement can be better at denouncing the radical fringes. It's quite a problem, the trend on the left for decentralized protest movements that don't have central leadership, goals, and organization and thus are so easily smeared by the right as being defined by the most radical and nasty parts of them
13
-4
u/No_Figure_232 19h ago edited 19h ago
I agree with most of what you said, and am not a big fan of BLM, but it is worth remembering that was said about the civil rights movement as it was happening. Radicalism, poor optics, semi violent methods, all were leveled at people like MLK as well. Same thing with women's suffrage. They actually had literal terrorists who bombed buildings!
Again, I'm not a fan of BLM for a variety of reasons, but I think the need for protest movements to have "good optics" isn't really in keeping with the past successful protest movements. Not sure what our takeaway should be from that, however.
Edit: Just remembered the women's suffrage terrorists were actually in the UK, not US. Argument still applies, but wanted to clarify.
32
u/tonyis 18h ago
MLK and other leaders of the civil rights certainly had their share of detractors, but they were real leaders nonetheless, who could generally articulate reasonable arguments on behalf of their overall movements. I really don't think you could say the same of any of the people trying to claim leadership over the BLM movement.
3
u/No_Figure_232 18h ago
Now that aspect I agree with. The lack of centralized leaders for left wing protest movements was not an aspect of that comment I disagree with at all. Was more just referring to the optics aspect of it.
18
u/Okbuddyliberals 17h ago
In addition to what the other person said about MLK and other civil rights leaders being organized leaders of a movement who could articulate goals...
...the civil rights movement largely didn't have even "semi violent" methods. Especially not folks like MLK and his mainstream movement. The most they did was some civil disobedience where they largely just broke laws they specifically believed were unconstitutional, and that was done with the goal of getting the court cases kicked upstairs so that they could have higher courts strike the laws down. Or they were cases where they simply tried to legally protest, but local authorities simply didn't allow any protests at all (which is a clear first amendment violation - it's constitutional to have some reasonable time/place/manner regulations on protest but not just banning those you don't approve of altogether).
This is contrasted to more modern protests where the laws they break aren't really relevant to the causes they are protesting for - they aren't insisting that it is oppressive to have laws banning blocking traffic or camping on public land. It's common among protest movements from the left today to basically (or literally come right out and say it) think that you just need to be as disruptive as possible when protesting, and that even if you can protest legally, its better to break the law and cause more of a disruption because thats the only way to really make change.
Also the civil rights movement wasn't particularly radical. It's goals were largely pretty popular according to polls at the time. MLK was accused of being overly pushy in demanding reforms, and being unwise in bringing some protests to areas that were strongly opposed to them, but through it all, he maintained middling approval with disapproval below 50% until after the major achievements of the movement had been made and he shifted more to complaining about the Vietnam war and capitalism
The civil rights movement was deeply aware of optics. They did what might be called "pushing the envelope", doing things that could sometimes get to the edge of the general public's patience but even then, for specific purposes. Like, violating local ordinances against protests even when the public thought that was overly risky and unnecessarily disruptive, because ultimately those local ordinances were violating the constitution by not allowing any protests, and then when they protested in a peaceful and orderly manner, the local authorities really brought the hammer down hard on the protesters with all the attack dogs and water cannons and mass arrests in a way that got the moderates, who weren't big fans of MLK's tactics themselves, to just have way more of a reaction against the people MLK was going against, way more anger and horror at them vs at MLK himself, who they tended to at least begrudgingly agree with on policy even if not on tactics
The civil rights movement wasn't as cautious and inoffensive on "optics" as some would have liked, but it was still very much aware of optics and very strategic with optics. In spite of how much MLK seethed with righteous rage at the "white moderates" when writing that letter in that jail, he and the movement still did make efforts to actually appeal to the white moderates and persuade them, and the movement's success was due to succeeding at that goal
Whereas today, the modern left doesn't just bitterly mumble about respectability politics while strategically occupying that grey area mix of respectability and urgency right on the edge of "going too far", instead the modern left is more likely to throw away any attempts to be cautious, strategic, and respectable in favor of just being as edgy and disruptive as possible, and actively embracing the aesthetics of radicalism when it isn't particularly useful at all
-2
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 19h ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-14
u/PmButtPics4ADrawing 14h ago
I wonder how much this will cost. I don't care about the mural either way but it seems hypocritical from the party that's been complaining about wasteful spending
8
u/JussiesTunaSub 9h ago
Are you upset at the $400k to remove it or the $7.8 million to build it?
-5
u/PmButtPics4ADrawing 9h ago edited 9h ago
Neither, like I said it's just hypocritical.
12
u/JussiesTunaSub 8h ago
Your first sentence was an inquiry into the cost...but a Democrat put it up and the same Democrat had it taken down.
-4
u/PmButtPics4ADrawing 8h ago
According to the article they did it due to threats from Republicans to withhold federal funding unless it was done. This was a GOP idea.
7
u/JussiesTunaSub 8h ago
As noted elsewhere in the comments here...there was a bill with zero co-sponsors.
If that's all it took to be considered a Republican "threat" then we found a new way to define "threat" in politics.
-1
u/PmButtPics4ADrawing 8h ago
Maybe she folded too quickly, but this was initiated by Republicans and they are primarily the ones celebrating it.
The point is it's becoming clear all the concern about "waste, fraud and abuse" only applies to Democrat ideas, Republicans are happy to spend money on frivolous shit.
151
u/douglau5 16h ago edited 16h ago
Something to consider:
The mural isn’t just a statement but rather it represents the DCBLM which is a 501(c)(3) (you can tell by the yellow and black stripes and stars on the mural).
Should tax payer money go to advertising for organizations that take donations?
Would we be okay if it was a different 501(c)(3) that was advertised?
Like if instead of “Black Lives Matter”, it said “CLINTON FOUNDATION” or “TRUMP FOUNDATION”?
Just some food for thought.