A sympathetic Canadian vigil for Mike Brown and the Ferguson protesters descended into chaos after non-black participants were asked to stand in the back and not speak to media. The only person apparently pleased by this is not having an easy time of it... (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
36 ups - 0 downs = 36 votes
A vigil this evening in Canada's capital caused huge controversy after the demands of the student-government organizers that non-black (and especially white) participants in this show of solidarity move to the back of the bus - so to speak.
One user in the still-evolving thread is trying to defend the decision, and isn't having much luck:
> "A person is dead because of his skin colour. Why is this hard to understand? He was not seen as a person because of his blackness." Others are not buying it.
> "...the vigil is not about white people." White people react.
> "This isn't about making sure white people feel better, it's about helping black people work through the realization that certain systems are in place to legitimize their murder. If others don't like that, they can create their own event." Lots of debate over what the event would even be.
> "Why would just a crowd of mostly black people increase animosity? Who would be upset at a crowd of mostly black people in Ottawa? Why would that upset you?" "Bigot" getting thrown around like a hackey sack in this one.
> Meanwhile, a different user has a very hard time making it clear to anyone what he actually thinks about the matter, and suffers downvotes equally from both sides.
Anyone worried that the Ferguson kerfuffle was confined to its immediate neighborhood or even original country can rest easy.
150 comments submitted at 04:42:30 on Nov 26, 2014 by ColonelBy
Stuff like this is one of the reasons why I don't get directly involved with progressive (or whatever term you want to use) causes anymore. A lot of them really do seem to take their "allies" for granted.
Same here. Nothing but childish infighting and a lack of action on important issues that effect everyone.
Oh man. There really was an obsession with purity and one-upmanship. It was a sight to behold.
If this is a reason for you not to get involves in progressive causes, you were never concerned in the first placed.
They take you for granted?
It's like some people cannot deal with the fact that the world doesn't revolve around them.
Imagine if the Tuskegee airmen had this attitude.
As a gay man, I'm appalled at how some elements of the GSM community treat allies, and I think they're perfectly justified in refusing to participate with groups of people who treat them shittily for literally no reason.
"You were never concerned in the first place" my ass. First, let's make sure we're not accepting the reframing language being used in the linked thread; this isn't about doing things to "include" allies that are above and beyond what the organizers would otherwise do. This is about rejecting positive actions of exclusion. Second, your tactic of implicitly conflating a belief with the people who advocate for that belief is both facile and disingenuous. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that someone can care about progressive causes while rejecting the specific methodologies of people or organizations supporting that cause.
Of course, this doesn't even begin to touch on the immensely flawed interpretation of critical theory being used to justify the actions in this case. Insofar as that interpretation is flawed, then your critique of sneakypeekyleeky is just another example of the tendency of radical movements towards a totalizing discourse that is inherently objectifying and counter-productive. It's like neither you nor anyone involved in the original decision has ever actual read the actual theories that they purport to implement. I mean, hello, how is using black bodies as a literal, visual symbol, explicitly placed as an object of study (to, perhaps predominately, the white gaze) not the height of confessional politics? Blinding biopower, Batman! This is white college students, using institutionalized power to commoditize black bodies in pursuit of a goal determined by a predominately white organization.
But sneakypeekyleeky is clearly the one who doesn't get it. Bah.
This is hilarious to me. You use buzzwords and unnecessarily acrobatic syntax to drive your point home and all it does is obscure your valid points.
I think it's completely understandable that people who feel mistreated by a certain group of people feel resentment towards that group.of course it's not an excuse to mistreat people who actually want to help (pro-tip: these are not the people complaining about being taken for granted itt) but this is not a representation of the movement as a whole . By large white people have been welcome with open arms in black social movements from the dawn of the civil rights movement to the ferguson protests going on right now (seriously just turn your tv on, i think there were just as many white people in the ny ferguson protests last night as any other group.) A lttle maturity and empathy would make feeling unwelcomed inconsequential to people who actually care. White people have been literally killed for the civil rights movement and you guys are pulling a yaya toure?
>You use buzzwords and unnecessarily acrobatic syntax to drive your point home and all it does is obscure your valid points.
I'm constantly annoyed, if only mildly, at this particular criticism. Jargon exists in all fields and it serves a really good purpose. If my audience was "laymen" then I think you're totally correct, but I was speaking to you as someone who I presume was interested in the topic of this protest, progressive politics, and identity movements. You were making normative (that means, "implying a 'should'") statements about how allies should interact with identity movements, in a very confident manner. If you don't actually know anything about identity politics, then I'm not sure why you bothered to make these statements and why it's my fault for using "buzzwords" (read: simple words that encapsulate complex, well-known, and frequently discussed topics).
My statements are literally critical theory 101. I don't really have the compulsion to extract words like, "biopower" and "objectifying" into explanations because I think that's patronizing and unecessary, nevermind incredibly long-winded. Critical theory, post-structuralism, post-modernism, etc ... developed this language specifically because it's useful to discussions on the topic at hand, so it should not be surprising that I use this language. And I think you're anti-intellectual if you imply I use meaningless or hard to understand language but still want to argue by ignoring my comments and repeating what are, frankly, pretty trite sentiments about maturity and empathy. Nevermind the irony that my comment is a critique of the fact that people pretend to support important issues in identity-politics without actually understanding them, and your response shows you pretend to support important issues in identity-politics but can't understand my comment.
Engage on my comment or don't, but it's not my fault that I use words you don't know and refuse to learn.
I have no problem with you using any words you choose. It's that their purpose is aesthetic. People can look at the length of your comment, see the words you're using and upvote without actually understanding your points.
Look at my comment again. I said you made valid points. Even you have to admit you could have said what you wanted to say in a much more simple and clear manner. Jargon for jargon's sake is looked down upon by laymen and intellectuals alike.
Phrases like biopower and the objectification of bodies are not "jargon", they're core concepts.
Personally I upvoted him because he's very obviously read Foucault (and absorbed the ideas) and you just as obviously haven't. In terms of a modern discussion of race and identity, this means he's arguing from an academic standpoint and you're...Jesus, I don't even know. Mouthing platitudes?
I mean, Jesus Christ, this comes off like one of Zizkek's jokes. "A critical theorist walks into a high school cafeteria..."
Christ, this kind of activist mentality. Somehow you got from criticizing this guy for using big words, to back-pedaling about how white people are welcome, to saying that they should be willing to get killed for the cause.
Can you just admit that sometimes activists are opportunistic and bad at managing people?
I didn't back peddle at all. My comment said white people being unwelcome didn't represent the movement. You must have misread my comment.
And im saying that feeling unwelcomed is not anywhere near an acceptable reason to gove up on a movement you claim to care about.
As a gay man, shutup. /u/icallbullshits is right, you are using language to obscure your points rather than explain them.
I think you've got some good points in there, but I couldn't really parse them out even if I wanted to...and I don't think the problem is on my end. Your second paragraph was clearly sponsored by a thesaurus but I could at least muddle through it. You go full blown eurphoric in your third paragraph and it's not even worth reading.
I'm going to assume the best about you and just assume you've spent a long time in academia studying these topics so the language is pretty intuitive for you, but you ain't talkin to your professors here bro. Dial it back.
> I couldn't really parse them out even if I wanted to...and I don't think the problem is on my end.
Why not? Why is the problem on my end and not yours? I justified my use of language by noting that I assumed certain things about the parent based on their comment and by noting that jargon helps express concepts about this exact topic; you clearly don't agree with my justification, but it's there.
>You go full blown eurphoric in your third paragraph and it's not even worth reading.
Speaking of buzzwords... This is far more meaningless than anything I wrote.
>I'm going to assume the best about you and just assume you've spent a long time in academia studying these topics so the language is pretty intuitive for you, but you ain't talkin to your professors here bro.
That is definitely true, and I understand if laymen don't understand or like this language, but I already mentioned that in my second response to icallbullshits. However, this is not "talkin' to you professors" language. I'm not enlightened, euphoric, or a navy seal. I wasn't kidding when I said this is 101 language. This is the basic vocabulary used to discuss the issue we're discussing.
If it's not for you, that's cool. There's definitely value in the ELI5 and askscience type analogizing and explaining, but that wasn't my purpose. It was to argue these concepts with someone who implied they knew what they were talking about and were "calling out" allies as not caring because they disagreed with a specific issue in identity politics.
>As a gay man, shutup.
Also, this is just unnecessary.
I mostly think the problem on your end is because you completely misinterpreted his point and then decided to drag out your thesaurus.
Do I really need to point out the pointlessly /r/iamverysmart points of your post?
>your tactic of implicitly conflating a belief with the people who advocate for that belief is both facile and disingenuous.
Really?
>Insofar as that interpretation is flawed, then your critique of sneakypeekyleeky is just another example of the tendency of radical movements towards a totalizing discourse that is inherently objectifying and counter-productive.
What the fuck?
>As a gay man, shutup. >>Also, this is just unnecessary.
It was just a mirror to how you opened your post. If anything it just highlights how completely unnecessary like 60% of what you said actually is.
I consider myself fairly well versed in identity politics and I think you're just blowing steam. It's masking your actual points too which are generally good which makes your blowhard language even more disappointing.
Yep that's the part that's disappointing to me. He has good or even great points but is too insecure about people disagreeing to make them clear imo. It's cowardice.
>As a gay man
I don't really believe you.
>you are using language to obscure your points rather than explain them.
Open your mind to being wrong and read it again, because that's definitely not what's happening.
You can check my post history. I'm either gay or really dedicated to pretending to be gay.
I don't know why I'd need to open my mind to being wrong. I was able to get that /u/ParanoydAndroid was saying that there's a difference between an entire progressive idea and a specific event in support of that idea. I think he's right. But he buried all his other points and any nuance under completely pointless language.
I legitimately want to hear what he has to say.
But c'mon:
>Second, your tactic of implicitly conflating a belief with the people who advocate for that belief is both facile and disingenuous.
That's a line I'd expect to read on /r/iamverysmart
>That's a line I'd expect to read on /r/iamverysmart
Oh jeez. I get it, everyone who drives faster than you is a speed demon and everyone that drives slower than you is a moron.
You're not driving faster than me. You're swerving across every lane of traffic at erratic speeds.
Perfect reply. Perfect example of what he's doing.
Ill agree that his language was very fluffed up (since that's a popular thing to do on Reddit) but that doesnt mean he's wrong.
Also, im pretty sure most people in academia wouldn't want the unnecessarily complicated filler language
I said multiple times that I don't think he's wrong either.
Exactly. He writes that way for aesthetic reasons. So people can take his laguage gymnastics as a sign that he's right. And it's working. Even even college professors dont debate that way.
Which was dumb cause I don't think he's wrong. The original comment you were responding to was kinda unclear. To use an example, it could be interpreted that the guy isn't feminist because some feminists act badly or it could be interpreted that he doesn't go to feminist rallys because the feminists who organize them behave badly.
With the former, you're correct. He was never feminist in the first place.
With the latter, the other dude is correct. There's just no reason he needs to hide behind jargon.
And I mean for fucking sake I think I just explained his entire point with a fraction of the words he used. Does anyone really think his post is necessary or good communication?!
>To use an example, it could be interpreted that the guy isn't feminist because some feminists act badly or it could be interpreted that he doesn't go to feminist rallys because the feminists who organize them behave badly.
See, this is kinda why my language was necessary. First, I'm not sure that being nuanced is the same as being "unclear". Second, I never said "feminists" and "feminists" as a whole group don't really have anything to do with my comment. It's about how this protest group is applying concepts from feminist-type theory.
>And I mean for fucking sake I think I just explained his entire point with a fraction of the words he use
Uh ... wut?
>Second, I never said "feminists" and "feminists" as a whole group don't really have anything to do with my comment.
Claims to be very smart.
Can't understand how examples work.
I agree with you. I even told him he made valid points. His communication is just poor though.
I wouldn't be too worried about the upvotes/downvotes here either. He's clearly got alt accounts. I think he even accidentally responded to me with one of them.
I'd roll my eyes at this privately too, but it's not because I'm personally butthurt about being made to stand in the back. It's because the organizers are latching a lot of agendas onto the protest that the people who show up don't necessarily support. I got really sick, during the Iraq war, of showing up to protests and speakers showing up who started rambling about US Imperialism's threat to the brave regimes of Cuba or Robert Mugabe.
I refuse to support any minority organization that doesn't let me spearhead their entire movement. That's what makes me such a strong ally!
Or how about "I refuse to support a minority organization that actively rejects my help". The white kids weren't asking to stand in the front of the crowd as your comment seems to suggest. I don't think it's crazy at an event decrying racism to expect to stand with your fellow students of like mind. Not of like colour.
Really seems like the event organizers didn't want them there anyway.
Pretty much sums these people up. Not about them? Not their problem.
I think it's more the fact that they feel they are treated negatively. So that's why they wouldn't want to go to these kind of events.
Pretty much. They treat you like shit. I'm expecting some hostile/snide replies to my other comment; amp that hostility up by 100 if you want to get an idea.
I used to be involved with the LGBT. The trans population suffers from a lot of abuse. And they take it out on you.
Glad I'm out of that toxic environment.
You have the power to say my feelings are hurt so im out of the fight. Trans people don't. Do you know how much trans people are neglected within the lgbt movement? They stick with it though because they actually care. You just kinda care so you give up.
What a perfect example of what sneakypeekyleeky is talking about.
They can look at all the other Ferguson protests going on where white people are standing side by side, hand in hand with black people. But nope. It's the one in Vancouver that breaks the deal for them. These people are full of shit. They can't be arsed with these issues and they'll make any excuse for it. Im not involved either but im not making bullshit excuses and insulting people's intelligence with see through excuses.
Well sometimes all it takes is one or two bad experiences and you just don't want to bother anymore. Also the other protests are better, they show everyone together in condemnation, not whites and other ethnicities at the back.
"Well sometimes all it takes is one and two bad experiences and you just don't want to bother anymore. " - Martin luther king
Well done lad. Truly great allies. You guys do know white people got beat up and died for the civil rights movement right?
>Truly great allies.
Eh. I have limited time and resources and there's a huge amount of need out there. While I believe many causes are just I don't want to spend time fighting a cause and the fellow supporters. I'm not prepared to be beaten and killed - seems like a high bar no? Frankly, I simply don't want to be treated poorly by the rest of the team. As it stands now I volunteer some 20 hours a week to a different cause. I'm not deluded enough to think my lack of active support is a huge loss to the lgbtq movement, but I'm quite sure there are a lot more people who think like me than people who think like MLK. In the battle for hearts and minds that stuff adds up.
What do I know though? Not my movement, not my choice.
Idiotic comparison, feeling rejected by the group you support is a big knock to ones confidence and would make it harder to go out and do it again.
Also yeah some people have died and been attacked. How does this relate in the slightest ? They weren't told to stay at the back by the civil rights movement, they were accepted to stand side by side to fight the good fight.
I have done some reading about social movements and allies particularly in SNCC. Basically SNCC had a lot of white do gooders who came from urban rich families who came out for the summer to "help the blacks" but they also carried a lot of racial biases that they were fighting against. The black activists saw them as vacation activists who could spend a summer getting out the black vote and then the next in Paris. A lot of the white students coopted leadership positions and assumed they knew more about the situation than the black members.
Here is a song by Gil Scott-Heron about SDS and carries similar theme.
This isn't to say that allies aren't treated badly but there seems to be legitimate concern about how allies treat the groups they are trying to help.
This seems like one more case of a white person insisting on being in the picture on their terms, though?
Why not just ask, "What can I do to help," and then listen to the answer and do that?
As a white dude, I'm not getting shot by cops for being white. So if shit's gotta change, I'm not going to presume I know what to do to change it. I mean, unless you believe that you use some secret technique beyond "be born white" to avoid being shot by cops...
This guy fucking gets it.
They sure lost a powerful ally today. Whatever will they do without your vague approval?