Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter

I like this explanation

Then you have missed the point.

No one is saying that all lives don’t matter, but that traditionally black lives have not mattered as much. That needs to change.

I have read the thread and the links and I remain unconvinced

Tooting, read the thread. People explain why “all lives matter” perpetuates racism

All lives matter regardless of race, gender, age, faith, ability or sexuality. If we focus on just one then what becomes of the others. I deplore all labels given to people and the divisions that arise as a result and inequality that ensues

SparklingSilver was the other poster

Very good posts from Starblaze, Madgran, Sudonim and many others. Never thought I'd agree with PaddyAnn but on racism we are on the same page. It is abhorrent and must not be tolerated but first it must be acknowledged. For those who still don't understand 'black lives matter' I refer you back to Starblaze's analogy regarding the position of women early last century.
I do understand the point of view of Anniebach and the poster who referred to my granddaughter's ordeal that where we single out a group and address their concerns while people of opposing views (however biased or wrong) see this as 'taking the other side' it can cause more tension but surely we have to 'side' with the oppressed if we are to make change.

typical sign in most places for rent in London in the 1950's and 60's stated 'No Irish, No Blacks, No dogs'. Racism was rife!!!

Mosley still led a Fascist movement in GB and was still trying to hold open air meetings in East London, where so many BAME and Jewish people lived. We prevented this by force - you might not like that word, but that was our way of dealing with this.

The Brexit lies (not debate) has given permission for racism to become legitimate. Was the original vote mainly about preventing 'foreigners coming to take out jobs' ? Think it was. Gosh do we need those foreigners now!!!

white supremacy was the norm. for the ruling classes from Churchill downwards - he stated that white races were superior to others.

I do find it so difficult to even to start to understand how anyone is judges by the colour of their skin, or shape of their eyes, etc. But ........perhaps those that do are just extremely unsure of their own abilities

My first job was as a secretary in the Hospital Secretary's department of a psychiatric hospital.

I remember quite clearly having some rather heated exchanges with two of the young men who were clerical officers in the same office as me.

One, R, would make racist remarks about the black and Asian staff who worked in the hospital, mostly as mental health nurses. The other, P, would agree with me that the remarks were unpleasant and uncalled for.

However, P, would make homophobic remarks about a gay man who worked in the pharmacy..

There was a massive amount of racism in those days, some of it quite blatant. If this culture hadn't been challenged, resulting eventually in race discrimination legislation, perhaps it would be just as bad today. It has got better but it has certainly not disappeared. White people tend to be quite tolerant of and friendly towards black people who are compliant and non-complaining. But if a black person objects to a remark or action they feel is unacceptable, there are some who then call them "difficult", "touchy", "over-sensitive" or - possibly the worst of all "having a chip on his/her shoulder".

This happened with my husband when he first came to the UK and people tried to change his first name (a perfectly easy name to pronounce and remember) to a typical English name. All of his non-white colleagues went along with this to avoid being proclaimed " trouble". It may seem trivial, and not on a par with being materially disadvantaged or physically threatened, but who would appreciate being expected, as a matter of course, to be given a different name of somebody else's choice?

I was a child in the 1950s and there was racism then. Most of the parents seemed to have negative views of people who were different to them.

As a teenager in the 60s things were changing and I did challenge the views of the older generation but they were too set in their ways.

I think things are changing for the better but too slowly. Even now some people are racist and will not change, but it is not as bad as in the 50s.

That is why I have said up thread that teaching our children to accept and learn about other cultures and religions is the way forward.

To respect everybody no matter what their colour.

I should add, if you were brought up in a small rural village in the middle of nowhere, is your attitude different? How do you feel when your children come home from Primary School to say they have been celebrating Diwali or Eid? I'd be interested to hear other GNs opinions.

I really think that your attitude towards racism depends on where you were born, brought up, went to school etc. Personally, I was born and brought up in London. It wasn't multicultural back in the late 1950s. There was only one black girl in our primary school. She called me ice-cream and I called her chocolate. We were best friends. However, by the 1960's London was more multicultural and that's when I heard my first racist comments, sadly, from my dad . I had no problems with my black friends and they had no problem with me. It was sad that my dad felt so insecure about the fact that black people were moving into our area.

Very thought-provoking posts and thanks to SueDonim for bringing the topic up. Education is important since our actions speak louder than words. I agree that children are not born racists, but they pick up a lot of their behaviours from their parents, friends and other influential people in their lives. We all have unconscious biases- when without thinking we react in a certain way to people we think or see are different. How do we change this-by discussing it as we are doing and recognising prejudice in ourselves since it impacts on how we deal with people. We have to continually work on accepting diversity and inclusion.

Yes, exactly. If you can’t bear the thought of a street name of a vile person being changed it says a lot about you as a person.

People who were leading proponents and beneficiaries of the enslavement, brutalisation and murder of other human beings do not deserve to be honoured with statues, street/building names, etc, etc. I doubt ordinary people had much say in the matter when these decisions were made - or perhaps they wouldn't have objected anyway - but I like to think we live in more enlightened times now (though I do wonder sometimes), or at least aspire to behave in a more civilised fashion.

Those who object to removal are, in my opinion, already racist in their views. We should not bow to racists.

Why would removing the names of despicable people from our streets cause more racism?

I imagine people said that when women campaigned for the vote.

I pray I am wrong but I fear all that is taking place will cause a
rise in racism , there will be much resentment.

Of course Annie, this is why children need to be taught, if not at home, then surely in education this should be prevalent
The world needs wake up

Children are taught all sorts of awful things at home, it's part of the role of education to show them other ways.

True. That does not mean they cant be presented with alternative viewpoints

Many Children are taught racism in the home

Changing the name of a street does not mean it will change the views of people living in the street

No it doesn't. But explaining why the change is being made or even being considered, putting up plaques that explain the history or using honest history on that street name to teach kids, as part of a reviewed curriculum that does not sanitise out the uncomfortable bits, just might!

One positive thing which could be done is to investigate and then try to change areas where black lives are less valued. For example the fatality rate for black women in childbirth. It is huge compared with white fatalities www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47115305
The judicial system needs investigation as well. There is evidence that black people are treated less favourably.
It's a question of gathering data and then looking at processes and implementing changes.

Peardrop650. As much as the abhorrence of your DIL and GD experience there is something needing to be said. When a section of society is seen to be gaining reparation advantage and another section denied is when it becomes aggrieved and reacts accordingly. What the latter see is not equality, but inequality. What should also be consider is that when one section of society perceives an historical figure/statue to be offensive and vandalised, so another sees its history being maligned and destroyed.