Re: Request for consensus to add text in the BLM statement

I did want to state that I had the same concern about the proposed
"violence against marginalized communities" text - that it seems to imply
other types of violence are just fine - but chose to remain silent.  I'd
prefer to simply strike "and violence"; but as a multiply-privileged
community member, I will not object either way.


On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:05 AM Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
wrote:

>
> On 25/08/2020 12:43, Tobie Langel wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:40 AM Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com
> > <mailto: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.
>
> I think this mischaracterises my concern.
>
> My concern is producing a statement that, by implication, condones
> violence done to a person from a marginalised community by another
> person from the same community.
>
> It also assumes that a person only belongs to a single marginalised
> community.
>
> I'm not objecting to the proposed edit, I'm just trying to explain why
> it makes me uncomfortable as a person who belongs to two communities
> recognised as being marginalised and/or under-represented (not, for the
> avoidance of doubt, as a member of the privileged community to which I
> also belong).
>
> > 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.
>
> The person who raised the objection gave us two possible options that
> they felt would enable them to drop their objection, and the text ralph
> shared was one of those options. The choice centred on the adjective
> used, and the decision was made to use "unequivocally".
>
> >
> > Have we considered getting this statement reviewed by someone external
> > who understands the dynamics at play here?
> >
>
> We haven't, no. If we can find someone who understands the limitations
> we're working with, and who might be able to take a look in the next few
> days, it would provide some valuable insight though.
>
>
> Léonie.
> > --tobie
> > ---
> > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_(politics)
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_(politics)>
>
> --
> Director @TetraLogical
> https://tetralogical.com
>
>