General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOMG!!!. Watching Bloomberg, Bill and Melinda Gates along with Warren Buffet say "ALL LIVES MATTER"
Last edited Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:42 AM - Edit history (1)
and they do this through the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
Obviously, these three have not got the message yet. It matters little that they are working to help the world's poorest people, to lift them out of hunger and poverty, along with advances in science and technology to save lives in developing countries, against such devastating diseases such as malaria and TB.
They didn't get the memo.........
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)The stupidity knows no bounds
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)I know conservatives have latched onto that as their response to BLM, but it's a complete non-sequitur. Like if someone said a wine was French, and I responded that is was actually from Bordeaux. If all lives matter, black lives matter.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)understanding that for so many years and in so many venues black lives have NOT mattered in relation to ALL lives and the suffering and dying must STOP.
Let's all get behind THAT! And the comparison to wine is beyond condescension...really, can't you do better than THAT? Jeez...
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)Of course it's obvious, that was my point! It should be obvious even to the conservatives who latched onto that as their counter-phrase. I understand full well why people are objecting to the phrase since it is being used to minimize the issue of police brutality. It makes no sense for a pro-racist to attack the phrase "black lives matter" with "all lives matter", yet they do it anyway. At least the "Blue lives matter" was understandable; they value the lives of police officers more than the lives of black people in general, a stark but refreshingly honest admission.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)You have made an excellent point and here is where O'Malley got into hot water. He obviously didn't mean "all lives matter" in the pretext that we know conservatives mean it. We've now applied further thinking and I think O'Malley is smart enough to have "gotten" it.
lostnfound
(16,138 posts)There are an unusual number of Hispanics killed by cops as well.
Not as bad as AA, I think. But a lot.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)The same reforms necessary to protect black people from police abuse would help protect us all.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)indicating that this large number of deaths are virtually being ignored and demanding that it should matter. And it should.
brush
(53,475 posts)Black lives are the ones being snatched almost daily by brutal, racist police not white lives.
Sandra Bland hasn't even been buried yet and people can't seem to connect the dots "All lives matter" takes the focus off of an issue that is of LIFE AND DEATH IMPORTANCE to African Americans who happen to be a big party of the Dem party constituency and whose issues need be addressed and not co-opted and diluted by people who are supposed to be allies.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)I don't understand using the phrase as a way to attack the argument that black lives matter. I believe that black lives matter because I believe that all lives matter, and that is why I want the police brutality stopped.
brush
(53,475 posts)It just not understanding that it dilutes the focus on a life and death matter to African Americans who are being brutalized and killed almost daily by racist cops.
Allies in the progressive movement need to get on the same page on this.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's an exaggeration, but not by much. Approximately 150 African-Americans are killed by the police every year in this country. So almost every other day, which is horrifying.
However, I wonder what percentage of that total are indeed unjustified killings motivated by racism?
brush
(53,475 posts)In my post I stated that African Americans are brutalized and killed almost daily by police.
You said blacks were killed almost every other day.
Aren't we saying essentially the same thing, especially if you include the brutalization incidents that we know occur but don't make the headlines?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)every 36 hours to be precise, works out to about 250 a year. period.
madville
(7,397 posts)Twice as many white lives as black lives are taken by the police every year. Google "unarmed white man shot by police" or "white man killed by police" and look at all the different stories that appear. I get that the BLM movement deserves it's own special attention and specific actions and agree. However to say that white lives are not brutally taken by the same police is not correct.
Here's a recent one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/ryan-bolinger-des-moines-police_n_7560874.html
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . So pointing out that "twice as many white lives as black lives are taken by police every year" hardly refutes the claim that this is an issue that breaks primarily along racial lines!
brush
(53,475 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Certainly you get that, right?
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for this and probably get this post hidden but.....I've seen the argument from the other side (don't agree with it) - which is that the BLM group only seems to care about blacks when they're killed by white police officers. There is a real problem with black on black crime in many of our cities and that is being completely ignored. That is the reason many feel free to ignore the BLM movement - not that they don't acknowledge there's a problem (some don't) but they feel far to many African Americans are dying at the hands of their own and that does't seem to matter at all.
brush
(53,475 posts)This is freeperville sh_t.
Criminals in EVERY ethnic group pray on the people closest to them (google it and find out for yourself).
White criminals prey mostly on whites, Latino criminals prey mostly on Latinos, and black criminals prey mostly on other blacks. There is nothing new about that so why come here with a racist "Newsflash" about black-on-black crime on a post dealing with police killings of unarmed blacks?
What foolishness! You should know better.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of the crime facts you laid out so I don't need lessons from you. I'm telling you why many feel free to ignore the BLM movement (which I happen to support) and your post is exhibit A. You can call me a freeper until the cows come home - frankly I don't give a shit what you think of me but if you wish to ignore reality, that's entirely your problem.
brush
(53,475 posts)We don't need people who can't distinguish the difference.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)an acceptable response to "why don't you care about ALL black lives", please feel free to share it.
brush
(53,475 posts)from the far right talking point of black-on-black crime to questioning whether I care about all black lives?
If you did yourself you never would have dredged up the tired old winger fall black of black-on-black crime.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Spare me the histrionics - we're on the same fucking side and all you're looking for is an argument. I'm looking for an effective way to answer bullshit and you just accuse me of bullshit. We're done here.
brush
(53,475 posts)when, as I said, criminals in every ethic group prey on those closest to them.
I don't have time for right wing talking points, especially if you're on the same side.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and them correcting you with, "It's from France."
But as far as BLM goes, African Americans are the ones who are being killed at a much higher rate than anyone else, and they are the ones whose killers seem to usually get off without penalty. BLM is saying that isn't OK, that their lives matter as much as everyone else's lives. No one acts like white lives don't matter - maybe specific white people's lives but not because they're white.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)I had a hard time coming up with an analogy because the fact that black people are a part of all people is so obvious that it shouldn't need comment. I get why people are angry with the usage of the phrase. "All lives matter" is gibberish in this context. Police departments are out of control and racist/"anti-crime" people are posting mindless platitudes as a "counter argument".
still_one
(91,965 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)phrase," all lives matter" and it sucks that this happens time after time. We cede it to them every damn time. We should own both memes.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . of police brutality. Yes, it affects some white people too, but not nearly at the rate it affects African Americans.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)You should be quite proud of yourself.
still_one
(91,965 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)CANDO
(2,068 posts)To Don Lemon on CNN. Montel essentially said this is just bullshit(he was responding about the outrage regarding O'Malley saying ALM at NN and all the hand wringing that ensued) and sidetracks the issue. So I guess Montel is just a racist that doesn't get it. Nobody is mocking anyone regarding this issue. The over reactions like you just did there with your snarky bullshit saying someone is mocking something is what's making DU suck lately. If you want discussion, then stop shutting it down with shit such as that.
brush
(53,475 posts)You're kidding, right?
Neither carries much credibility in activist circles so quoting them doesn't carry much weight.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)We can't say all lives matter(which implies only BLM). Only those from credible activist circles have valid arguments. Any other qualifiers you'd like to throw in there? This is why these arguments end up in shit storms instead of multi-directional healthy and productive discussions.
brush
(53,475 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 21, 2015, 11:39 PM - Edit history (3)
We live in the United States. Everyone who calls themselves even somewhat progressive knows that white lives have always been valued (matter) more than black lives or there would never have been enslavement, lynchings, the KKK, sharecropping, redlining, jim crow . . . and I could go on and on and on.
"Black lives matter" is a huge, life and death issue in the AA community and should not be co-opted and thus, minimized by tone death allies using "all lives matter".
Besides, it came from racist right wingers trying to take the strength and focus from the "black lives matter" movement.
If you are really allies, get a clue by taking our word on this as we feel strongly about it.
And please stop whitesplaining how we should feel about it, and how, condescendingly, "all lives matter" is a better and more inclusive term like white lives haven't always mattered.
I really do. But it just astounds me how the good folks on the left are targeted with thread after thread when the targets should be the haters of the right. And also, why let them control the dialog by letting them own the ALM slogan? Why not somehow incorporate that with BLM? The problem with BLM is it's exclusivity. Why not placards saying Our Lives Matter Too? I've seen the "I am a man" placards of the Civil Rights movement. The reason they were so effective? Because they weren't exclusive.
brush
(53,475 posts)I'm sure they would like nothing better than to see others involved because wanting to help end police killings of blacks.
There are already others involved so that's not a problem at all.
As far as all the posts on this, it's about making allies more aware of what BLM is about, not targeting allies.
And I don't know about you but I'm not wasting my time trying to convince wingers to get involved in BLM. Not a chance.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)"All Lives Matter"?
There is a valid concern there.
All Lives Matter is a rightwing retort.
It's like when rightwingnuts post stories about police who got shot when the topic of blacks getting murdered by police comes up.
still_one
(91,965 posts)Democratic candidates that make the statement that "all lives matter", it is NOT racist, nor is it insensitive to the race issue.
brush
(53,475 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 21, 2015, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)
in not understanding that using the phrase "all lives matter" TAKES THE FOCUS off of a topical, life and death issue in the AA community.
Black men, women and children unarmed are being killed by racist police all over the country with great frequency.
That does not happen to white people with anywhere near the same frequency because they are not targeted because of their race.
White lives have always mattered so it's insulting to many in the AA community when that co-opting phrase is used.
Well intention allies, and I'm including you in this category, sometimes need to just LISTEN to black people and learn instead of whitesplaining and therefore won't come off as out of touch to what's important to black people, and maybe won't also make clueless comments like "all live matters".
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)isn't basically an amazing example of "white fragility" on display.
White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.
More here (warning, PDF; interesting and worth a read, though).
gollygee
(22,336 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)My point was that when someone says "All Lives Matter", does not mean that person is insensitive or has prejudice against minority groups. In fact the example I used in the OP explains this by what they do.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)Why is it so controversial when someone says "All Lives Matter" instead of "Black Lives Matter"?
Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!
The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out. source
Henryville
(13 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... lives mattering goes without saying but not so much for black lives
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)But I don't really in my heart believe that they are making that statement as an affront to BLM.
The base philosophy in the foundation is that "every life has equal value" it is not a stretch by any means to say "all lives matter".
Their foundation has nothing to do with police violence, but instead the basic needs of food, water, housing, education, health care, etc...
still_one
(91,965 posts)to African Americans, or any minority group, and it does not mean that "black lives do not matter".
Black lives do matter, and in the rash of African American killings, not only by law enforcement, but by racists in our society, I did NOT read any posts on DU that were NOT upset by those outrages that has and is occurring toward the African American community.
I see no evidence that Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley are racist or even insensitive to racial issues, as some threads have implied on DU. That was the point in my OP.
As for BLM, it brought attention to an issue that has been and is being ignored for some time, and needs to be acted upon. As BLM said, words won't cut it, and they are right, action is necessary, but to achieve that necessary action it has to start with a dialog, and just maybe the dialog is finally coming to the front
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)malaria is the second biggest killer worldwide, and over 90% of deaths are in africa. b and m gates foundation devoted 500 million $ in 2014 to eradicating killer diseases, including malaria.
guess whose lives they are saving?
Township75
(3,535 posts)And who can argue with them that all lives matter?
still_one
(91,965 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)...all lives matter goes without saying BLM does not in practice
moondust
(19,917 posts)"All lives matter" is a statement of equality, as in "all lives matter in the eyes of the Lord."
"All Lives Matter" is a slogan some RWers have used to try to counter and minimize the "Black Lives Matter" slogan and movement.
It's not always easy to tell which usage somebody is thinking of when they utter the phrase. I have no doubt whatsoever that O'Malley at NRN was not using the phrase "all lives matter" to try to counter and minimize the "Black Lives Matter" slogan and movement, but rather as a statement of equality.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)does not get to define what anybody means when they utter the words "all lives matter" any more than a bunch of RW racists get to define it.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... By proffering something that goes without saying.
Like saying inhaling matters...
still_one
(91,965 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)Come on!
We live in the United States. Everyone who calls themselves even somewhat progressive knows that white lives have always been valued more than black lives or there would never have been enslavement, lynchings, the KKK, sharecropping, relining, jim crow . . . and I could go on and on and on.
Get a clue, people. "Black live matter" is a huge, life and death issue in the AA community and should not be co-opted and thus, minimized by tone death allies.
Besides, it came from racist right wingers trying to take the strength and focus from the "black lives matter" movement.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)For example, what is a "movement"?
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The world's top monopolies, most of them are doing business in Africa and here we have the richest man of a monopoly handing out money to monopolies to do what, exactly? Try not to pollute the air so much? Those companies spend billions trying to influence public policy to not regulate them on them so much so what the founder of a company that faced numerous anti-trust lawsuits in Africa.
Take a look at their corporate investments, too far and too hard to follow the money but if it was like organizing a Cartel that wouldn't be publicized under What We Do. I wouldn't be suspicious if he didn't threaten to offshore if he didn't get the lap raised on H1B Visas and if it was about getting the best talent he'd ask for Green Cards but he isn't honest on the front the wages set are artificially based on the wages lowered not to mention the restrictions to take their talents to Apple if they're offering better wages or benefits -- driving down the wages for all workers in related industry or service.`
still_one
(91,965 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Looks to me more of tax dodge or corruption loophole
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust Investments
The foundation appears to have the following stakes in investments:[citation needed]
Arcos Dorados Holdings ~ 2.36% stake
AutoNation, Inc. ~ 1.56% stake
Berkshire Hathaway Class B Stock ~ 6.59% stake
British Petroleum ~ 0.24% stake (US$372 million[34])
Canadian National Railway Co. ~ 2.06% stake
Caterpillar, Inc. ~ 1.77% stake
Coca-Cola Co. ~ 0.77% stake
Crown Castle International Corp. ~ 1.60% stake
Exxon Mobil ~ 0.19% stake
FedEx Corp. ~ 0.97% stake
FEMSA ~ 3.06% stake
Liberty Global ~ 2.12% stake
McDonalds Corp. ~ 1.09% stake
Republic Services, Inc. ~ 0.37% stake
Shell - US$5.5 million[34]
Televisa ~ 2.94% stake
Wal-Mart ~ 0.36%[35] stake
Waste Management, Inc. ~ 3.97% stake
The foundation trust invests undistributed assets, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the foundation is attempting to relieve poverty.[34][36] These include companies that pollute heavily and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world.[37] In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility.[38] It subsequently cancelled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices.[39][40]
<snip>
Both insiders and external critics have suggested that there is too much deference to Bill Gates's personal views within the Gates Foundation, insufficient internal debate, and pervasive "group think."[72][74] Critics also complain that Gates Foundation grants are often awarded based on social connections and ideological allegiances rather than based on formal external review processes or technical competence.[74]
Critics have suggested that Gates' approach to Global Health and Agriculture favors the interests of large pharmaceutical and agribusiness companies (in which Gates invests) over the interests of the people of developing countries.[75][76][77][78]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-40
The last 2 paragraphs is pretty consistent elsewhere, no doubt puff pieces are everywhere but who even knows except all the relevant history of most of the world's top monopolies exploiting the resources of the African poor, unless they speak up about that rather than investing but I'm beginning to understand the foundation and who it helps. Monsanto has a "reputation" and well deserved one, numerous -- something like Stevia which CarGill comes into the picture there.
Why is the Gates foundation investing in GM giant Monsanto?
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's investments in Monsanto and Cargill have come under heavy criticism. Is it time for the foundation to come clean on its visions for agriculture in developing countries?
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is sponsoring the Guardian's Global development site is being heavily criticised in Africa and the US for getting into bed not just with notorious GM company Monsanto, but also with agribusiness commodity giant Cargill.
Trouble began when a US financial website published the foundation's annual investment portfolio, which showed it had bought 500,000 Monsanto shares worth around $23m. This was a substantial increase in the last six months and while it is just small change for Bill and Melinda, it has been enough to let loose their fiercest critics.
Seattle-based Agra Watch - a project of the Community Alliance for Global Justice - was outraged. "Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well being of small farmers around the world
[This] casts serious doubt on the foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa," it thundered.
But it got worse. South Africa-based watchdog the African Centre for Biosafety then found that the foundation was teaming up with Cargill in a $10m project to "develop the soya value chain" in Mozambique and elsewhere. Who knows what this corporate-speak really means, but in all probability it heralds the big time introduction of GM soya in southern Africa.
The two incidents raise a host of questions for the foundation. Few people doubt that GM has a place in Africa, but is Gates being hopelessly naïve by backing two of the world's most aggressive agri-giants? There is, after all, genuine concern at governmental and community level that the United State's model of extensive hi-tech farming is inappropriate for most of Africa and should not be foist on the poorest farmers in the name of "feeding the world".
The fact is that Cargill is a faceless agri-giant that controls most of the world's food commodities and Monsanto has been blundering around poor Asian countries for a decade giving itself and the US a lousy name for corporate bullying. Does Gates know it is in danger of being caught up in their reputations, or does the foundation actually share their corporate vision of farming and intend to work with them more in future?
The foundation has never been upfront about its vision for agriculture in the world's poorest countries, nor the role of controversial technologies like GM. But perhaps it could start the debate here?
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto
If all lives matter -- right now I'm having internet connection issues (happens when looking for the sources back and forth) Will update with the other stuff, have to load the pages back up and that's forcing a wall to my connection) read down the wiki page 'cause I can't load it right now to copy the corporate education, privatizing, etc. Who invests in Shell who owns Nigeria to do the right thing?
still_one
(91,965 posts)hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)Every single living being matters. That's my viewpoint and if my saying that diminishes anything or any one, then that person or thing has a problem. One life (of any color) does not matter more than another life.
We are all equal. We are all the same. And while that may certainly not be reality at this moment in time for some - and yes, many of all colors and genders, etc., THAT is my personal belief, and that is why I am a Democrat and why I fight for that equality on a daily basis. I will NOT be sidelined in that belief or that action because I fear that someone has coined a phrase for a particular cause and I may not have gotten the memo!
There is plenty of inequality in this world. Do you honestly think that I give a shit if the child sitting in the school cafeteria with no money to eat is black or white? Hell no! All I want is for that child to be fed.
I am sick to death of the divisiveness of the racial issue here on DU.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)That the principle of equality for all is more important than a righteous movement by a group of people?
Response to still_one (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and they really don't have a clue as to the importance of "Black Lives Matter" to millions of american citizens. No idea. I bet they never "get the memo".
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)If they prove useful?
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I tried to point this out after Hillary did her blatant dog whistle from the black church near Ferguson. She had just come from a Silicon Valley junket. This is something I have been listening to for months in my own unfortunately white ostensibly progressive wealthy enclave.
The white progressive elite has been almost hawkish in their obsessive need to assert #AllLivesMatter. You can't tell them that racists used this to hijack the %BLM hashtag. You can't explain the #BLM movement to them. Rich white progressives are ALWAYS RIGHT when it comes to projecting that they represent UNIVERSAL REASON and UNIVERSAL HUMANISM. That is why they keep cornering the political candidates to say #AllLivesMatter. It's not because they want to be racist dicks, which sadly they are being, but because they are suffering some form of cultural foundation panic. They seem to feel the moral order will fall apart if politicians don't affirm #AllLivesMatter.
They SENT THE MEMO.
doc03
(35,148 posts)WTF this is ridiculous, are black lives the only ones that matter? Then they attack the Democrats that are and have been on their side for decades.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... it's like saying to aides patients during the 80s all disease are dangerous
kentuck
(110,950 posts)It must be said. Regardless of the suffering or the faith in our mission, we cannot be exclusive from the rest of humanity. That is called racism.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Everybody knows ...
Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)People tend to be self-interested. There is the absolute existence of a narcissistic fear of being mistreated like a black person.
Their reasoning goes downhill from there.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)"Didn't get the memo" indeed.