On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:40 AM Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com> wrote: > I have a concern with Marisa's proposed change. If we specifically say > we do not support violence against marginalised people it implies that > we do support it against non-marginalised people > Not really. It means that we recognize that marginalized communities are the target of much more violence, proportionally, than non-marginalized ones. Saying Black Lives Matter isn't saying that other lives don't matter. It's saying that we need to do something about the fact that society, as a whole, acts as if Black lives mattered less than other ones. So, much like saying "all lives matter" in this context is essentially negating systemic racism, saying that we condemn violence against everyone either is a complete platitude, specifically implying that marginalized communities aren't subject to more violence than non-marginalized ones, or even worse, is a dog whistle[1] suggesting the protests are causing violence. Given the context of the formal objection was specifically to ask us to condemn violence related to the protests, I'm very concerned about releasing a statement that could be equivocal. Have we considered getting this statement reviewed by someone external who understands the dynamics at play here? --tobie --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_(politics)
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2020 12:00:45 UTC