Davie P

It did not begin with the murder of Floyd George. Either you don't know the history of BLM or your trying to trivialise the subject. But I suspect both - you refer to a man's murder as "having his collar felt" and "getting his neck nipped" and claim "not really a hell of a lot is known" about a well publicised global movement that started in 2013. So what's happening with this statement? Are black people inherently less empathetic that white people? Or perhaps there is no evidence of endemic anti-white racism in US law enforcement, and therefore nothing for people to protest about?

Or perhaps the police looked into it and found no crime had been committed, and your earlier points about right wing freedom of expression being curtailed by the police and everyone else was a little partisan and over dramatic.

This isn't a new controversy. There are no particularly detailed descriptions of his appearance in scripture or other records so it has been largely left to interpretation. Depictions of Jesus in different parts of the world tended to have physical characteristics reminiscent of the dominant culture of the area. The dominant culture holds the power and resources - the church is an instrument of power and it takes resources to create and distribute the iconography. The most recognisable and widely distributed modern portrayal of Jesus is of a central European man, when in fact he was middle eastern. So there is certainly a case to be made that a light skinned, blonde haired and blue eyed portrayal of Jesus is representative of European cultural dominance and the often violent Christianisation of many parts of the world.

Nobody is denying there has been some elements of violence on both sides of the spectrum, but your sweeping claim that "threats and violence" is "all BLM have given anybody" is just overwrought nonsense and undermines the points you're trying to make. Did you feel threatened by peaceful protests in Shetland or elsewhere around the country, or by BLM supporters engaging in widespread debate, or making educational resources available? If folk feel threatened by that, I suggest they ask themselves why.

Say what you want. No No No Relaxed

I believe absolutely in freedom of speech and the right to protest. As Voltaire is attributed as saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Yes I am indeed claiming that "Black Lives Matter" has been allocated(?) to a particular group/ideology". It is a well known global movement and as far as I'm aware, the "...lives matter" phrase was not commonly used in other contexts - until recently, and in response to BLM. And no I did not claim that anyone using "All, White (or any other colour)" is racist. I refer you to my previous post. In my experience, people using the "white lives matter" or "all lives matter" tend to be on the right of politics and use the phrase as an objection to BLM. It is absolutely their right to do so and to hold those views. It is the mock naïvety of folk bandying the phrases around and pretending they don't understand that the phrases have rightwing political and social overtones that I find tiresome. I'm sure there are people who don't know the context, but I suggest contributors to this forum are not among them. If this is directed at me, I assure you I have singled out many groups for support over the years, generally because I feel those particular groups are treated unfairly.

Yes, 'he has a point' if you think that a far right group flying a banner as a countermeasure to an equalities campaign is a good thing. To add to the 'point', it was flown during a brief anti-racism protest over a stadium hosting a sport which has been blighted with endemic racism. Folk might think that 'White lives matter' is just an innocent phrase used as a reminder that white lives do indeed matter, as do all lives, but like it or not the phrase has been adopted by the far right and has a context beyond just the semantics of the actual words. If folk don't want to be associated with that ideology, then best not use the phraseology. There are many ways to express support for equality but using 'white' or 'all' 'lives matter' is obviously an objection to the 'black lives matter' movement. However, if folk want to add far right underpinnings to what they're posting, then go ahead. It would be a helpful time saver if folk would just admit to being racist and give up with the 'yes, but, whatabout....' farting around.

Indeed. For every accusation of BBC bias toward one side of the political spectrum, you'll find another accusation to the opposite. Furthermore, and more generally, accusations of news bias are made almost exclusively by people who feel reports are biased against their own ideological position. An absolutely neutral position is not possible. The selection of which stories get covered and which don't, and which facts are included in a report with a wordcount or time limit, means that some information and context will be left out. However, of all the news sources I regularly read, the BBC is the nearest to neutral. Commercial news networks have a vested interest in discrediting the BBC as many see the BBC as having an unfair advantage due to license fee financing.

The newsreader was quoting from a report from the Office of National Statistics. Several other news agencies used the same wording. Are they all snobby too?

And what about it? Is it something you want to see taught in schools then? And does that mean people shouldn't raise awareness of other issues too? So you know the opinion of the majority of Shetland? And some folk going for a walk with some posters is inflaming hatred? Whose hatred? Your hatred?

Nonsense. I just googled ‘British prime minister’, and despite the article’s claims, there was a picture of Winston Churchill. Come on folks, let’s actually discuss the matters in hand rather than wasting each other’s time with spam

. . .that we can see segregation being proposed on both sides of the aisle for opposite reasons! OK, You've answered my question and we are indeed playing whataboutery. A sign at an "autonomous zone" is segregationist, therefore BLM principles are invalidated. I get you.

^ Here's the Daily Mail's context for that video https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8417925/Black-Lives-Matter-supporter-carries-far-Right-protester-London-Waterloo-station.html Are we going to try claiming the Daily Mail have a leftist slant?

With the greatest respect NullVoid, I find your posts to be difficult to follow. I've just wasted nearly 2 minutes watching a man rolling around in some mud and read an article about some people failing to grow their own food. What is your point?

You've just posted an image with no source or context. What's your point, or are we playing whataboutery?

Interesting. Have you just made this into an immigration issue? And what about born and bred British people who think that elements of our "way of life" needs to change? Or do you think all these BLM protesters are immigrants? [to the sound of alarm bells ringing]

Pretty much everything gets videoed nowadays, whether by police body and/or dash cameras or by onlookers. Is there a point here that I'm missing?

It might be worth familiarising ourselves with the core objectives of BLM - https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ The following points might go some way to addressing the 'All lives matter' retort: We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities. We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

^ you appear to be completely missing the point Urabug. No-one is suggesting people who commit crime shouldn't be brought to justice. BLM is a campaign to address systematic racism.

@Ghostrider. I agree with your sentiments on "wanton random criminal damage/vandalism", but... It is very idealistic to expect society to "assess and research [protests], and then address the demographic which is being most brutalised and discriminated against first." You're just putting more words around the core of whataboutery. There is ample statistical evidence to back up claims of discrimination against Americans of African descent. Do you really believe a workable way forward is for people to wait until they are provably the "the most severely brutalised and discriminated against" until their concerns are "addressed"?

Fair point, and thanks for an interesting link XAM7102. The BLM movement has caused me to research and rethink many subjects related to slavery and human rights issues, and many of these subjects have been raised by 'what about...' comments.

Your points are all valid, but they are also 'whataboutery' That kind of logic would dictate that folk shouldn't protest about anything unless they're going to protest about everything.

This thread has descended into visual spam and random videos. Onyhoo, I was pleased to see so many people out and about locally in peaceful support of a cause. And I didn't see anyone breaking social distancing guidelines! The inevitable violence in other parts of the UK will likely sow more division and be a test of Boris Johnson's mettle.

The Shetland Times have now deleted the poll after a fierce backlash on social media. From the comments I read the general tone was that the subject was so cut and dried that it shouldn't even be discussed. I think the wording of the poll was clumsy - you either had to support a ban or not, and the poll was sitting at 27% who opposed a ban the last time I saw it. I support the broad objectives of those campaigning against blackface in UHA, but it's worth noting that a group of people with a strongly held opinion has just forced a local media organisation to close a poll / discussion, effectively shouting down and disenfranchising those who don't share their opinion.

Motion lodged at Scottish Parliament calling for end of ‘blackface’ at Up Helly Aa festivals [shetland News]