Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #BREATHEAct
Most recents (5)
A neoliberal friend frustrated with "lunatic" tendencies among self-identifying "anti-racists" directed me to this @conor64 piece. I read it and agree in this case, at least as it's reported. But I urged my friend not to give up on antiracism. THREAD theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
With antics like the attached, I sympathize. But fwiw I found nothing remotely justifying that behavior or attitude in either of the books by Ibram X Kendi that I have read. It's unfortunate that it's not only the anti-antiracists that misconstrue Kendi, but well-meaning fans. 2 
So I usually do #FF for folks with fewer followers than me, but I'm taking this occasion to name some Twitter accounts I take seriously on issues of race and antiracism. This doesn't mean I always agree with them. But they are all sharp and serious thinkers. 3
THREAD
When we say defund the police, our demand is to divest from a body that has never created safety for Black people.
Instead, we want to invest in things that create the conditions of safety. Our offering: The #BREATHEAct. What does that mean?
1/9
When we say defund the police, our demand is to divest from a body that has never created safety for Black people.
Instead, we want to invest in things that create the conditions of safety. Our offering: The #BREATHEAct. What does that mean?
1/9
The current rationale for funding police at high levels is that it's what we need to stay safe. But here police fail: profiling, sexual harassment and assault, targeted discriminatory enforcement, and extrajudicial murder are endemic to US policing. Safety for whom? Not us.
2/9
2/9
The #BREATHEAct begins to create safety by divesting from systems that were never meant to keep us safe. These systems are not broken - they are operating exactly as they were designed. Divesting resources from incarceration & policing is divesting from systems that hurt us.
3/9
3/9
I'm an atheist so maybe my opinion is irrelevant, but I want to talk about the "neo-Marxism" of #BlackLivesMatter. On the one hand it's obviously absurd to think that everyone kneeling and protesting in support of BLM are Marxist, or even necessarily leftist. 1/
Indeed a lot of Black radicalism *is* Marx-inflected. Du Bois was famously influenced by Marx. The term "racial capitalism" came from Cedric Robinson, whose magnum opus was "Black Marxism". As a liberal I've expressed my own concern! See this thread. 2/
But even if BLM and M4BL were "neo-Marxist" (whatever that means), it wouldn't follow that we liberals have nothing to learn from these groups, can't collaborate, or can't express solidarity with Black lives in danger, a problem that *should* be a priority for any liberal. 3/
Alors qu’aux États-Unis des villes réorientent leurs budgets attribués à la police vers des politiques sociales et éducatives et que certains pays européens privilégient une police majoritairement désarmée, la France continue de s’enfermer dans le déni. bastamag.net/reformes-polic…
Après la mort de #GeorgeFloyd, Minneapolis a voté la suppression de la police locale. Une première aux Etats-Unis. L’argent consacré aux forces de l’ordre est réinvesti dans les services sociaux et publics de la ville et dans les associations de quartiers. bastamag.net/reformes-polic…
Le 7 juillet, le mouvement #BlackLivesMatter publie le #breatheact, un ensemble de propositions de lois visant à repenser l’ensemble du système pénal et carcéral breatheact.org
The Economist gets this badly wrong. The "identity politics" and "intimidation" they decry are the *only* reason we are paying attention to racial inequality as much as we are. This is exactly what it looks like for "new voices and experiences [to] enrich the debate."
The focus on power in the critical racial lens is correct, but the other word should be "difference" (of social, political, economic situation) not "division." And the concern about racial "innocence" is just bizarre and ... let's call it defensive.
The article is just incoherent.
"It believes in progress through argument and debate, in which reason and empathy lift truthful ideas and marginalise bigotry and falsehood."
What does @TheEconomist think marginalizing bigotry and falsehood looks like?
"It believes in progress through argument and debate, in which reason and empathy lift truthful ideas and marginalise bigotry and falsehood."
What does @TheEconomist think marginalizing bigotry and falsehood looks like?
