Is there a reason not to be silent? If it's maniacs like Fox News or people who think they were out to destroy families then it's not like anyone reasonable was asking
BLM website removes their "what we believe" page.
- Thread starter Houseman
- Start date
What's funny is that these heteros are gonna rot in a miserable nursing home one day, wondering why their children have abandoned them, and the irony will still be totally lost on them.
Noone who actually knows what the nuclear family is thinks its a good thing.
Noone who actually knows what the nuclear family is thinks its a good thing.
Last edited:
Eh, it works for me but I don’t have a pathological desire for it to be the only kind of family that exists. Might be because my mum was a single parent.
I would imagine that, if you're a part of a movement, you wouldn't want that movement to pull the rug out from under you and say "We've switched now, we no longer believe in X, now we believe in Y" because what if you don't believe in Y? What if you were only there because of X? Even if X is just gone and not replaced with anything, someone who believes in that might just quit.
If I'm part of a movement I'm probably not obsessing over an about us page on a website. I rather think that's more relegated to detractors looking for something petty to complain about
Sure. All those people who flocked to support BLM over the years did so because of what it said about nuclear families.
I don't actually think this is complex or controversial. A movement was started by a small group, who put their ideas down. Now, years later, it's a much larger movement and it is adjusting its mission statement presumably to better reflect its role and supporters.
The argument being employed by its critics here is essentially that no movement can adapt or change. This is akin to arguing that the Republican and Democratic parties are actually about enacting the same policies they were in 1850, just they're hiding and lying about it. That argument is so plainly a load of bullshit that anyone who advanced it would be laughed out the room. It is thus perhaps little surprise that no-one outside crank right-wingers gives a toss about BLM removing a page covering some of its founders' more unusual ideas.
Is it? What's the new mission statement?
Are they adapting or changing? Are they growing and learning? Or are they just trying to memory-hole the page because they keep getting criticized?
If they would have said "We're changing our "what we believe" page to better reflect..." or something, literally ANY statement at all, this would have been less of an issue.
Changing, updating, adapting, reflecting, learning, whatever you want to call it, all these things are fine, and things that humans are expected to do.
Last edited:
Not totally. The site had read something about ending the proscribed nuclear family. I'm told what they meant by that is, at least, that our society in the USA subsidizes the nuclear family and that should stop. (I thought our tax laws actually create a marriage penalty. WIC is paid to single women with kids only if she is not married. Etc.). Without subsidy, people would then be freer to form whatever family structure that works for them without a thumb on the scale so to speak.
Here's the section in question;
So the intention was to disrupt the nuclear family structure requirement. I.E., the notion that the nuclear family is the sole valid structure we all need to strive towards.
Yes, thank you for the reminder. I wrote it is not required and the response was that, if the government is subsidizing that nuclear family over all others, it is being required. It's thumb is on the scale anyway. On balance, are we doing so? Huge question given WIC and the marriage penalty. Not sure what else that person was referring to. Still, if we could equalize it, would the nuclear family show itself to thrive even without subsidy, over all others?
I imagine that that BLM website section was talking more about societal attitudes than government support. The nuclear family is usually portrayed as the ideal and the default in cultural depictions, including in education & religion.
It would undoubtedly still be a tremendously popular model. But the feeling is that currently people feel pressured in that direction when it's not always suitable.
Ok. so since the thing in question has been focusing on the traditional idea of the Nuclear Family, let's address what it has actually meant to the Black Community.
It was another tool for the oppression of the Black Community.
Pshaw, you say? Pshaw indeed.
For most of his time in this nation, the Black Male has been targeted as a cheap means of labor and a tool to get out aggression. If you were a good little worker, you were allowed to keep out of the way lest you stir up against in the majority's hearts for simply reminding them that you exist. You might be too valuable to vent on. If you were anything other than absolutely mandatory, you ran the risk of being lynched because some families needed an excuse to put together a picnic, and your swinging corpse would be just the centerpiece to make it a perfect Sunday afternoon.
Now given this nation's (and the world's) other secret shame being how women were treated as valued workers and having the ability to compete in the work place (i.e. not really), this meant a very easy way to keep the Black Community behind was just to take away the father. No father meant no real income. No real income meant no real means for equity. And equity leverage together is political power in the making.
The expendability of the Black Male through history has made it so that, sadly, my Culture had to make due with a non-traditional family structure, as it were. It became part of the culture.
Now stir that into a failure of education, especially on the Sex Ed side of things. Add a dash of Religious ideas that was also beaten into our part of society when we first landed here that was completely fine without teaching kids about where babies come from, and then you have a fragment of society that got used to surviving without a 'traditional nuclear family'.
It was another tool for the oppression of the Black Community.
Pshaw, you say? Pshaw indeed.
For most of his time in this nation, the Black Male has been targeted as a cheap means of labor and a tool to get out aggression. If you were a good little worker, you were allowed to keep out of the way lest you stir up against in the majority's hearts for simply reminding them that you exist. You might be too valuable to vent on. If you were anything other than absolutely mandatory, you ran the risk of being lynched because some families needed an excuse to put together a picnic, and your swinging corpse would be just the centerpiece to make it a perfect Sunday afternoon.
Now given this nation's (and the world's) other secret shame being how women were treated as valued workers and having the ability to compete in the work place (i.e. not really), this meant a very easy way to keep the Black Community behind was just to take away the father. No father meant no real income. No real income meant no real means for equity. And equity leverage together is political power in the making.
The expendability of the Black Male through history has made it so that, sadly, my Culture had to make due with a non-traditional family structure, as it were. It became part of the culture.
Now stir that into a failure of education, especially on the Sex Ed side of things. Add a dash of Religious ideas that was also beaten into our part of society when we first landed here that was completely fine without teaching kids about where babies come from, and then you have a fragment of society that got used to surviving without a 'traditional nuclear family'.
There you go, bringing your experiences from another demographic group into this conversation. The white men had a way of doing something and they're the top dogs in the world, so QED it's the right way for everyone.
Well... look at what they've accomplished. They've allegedly came to power oppressed everybody else