Comment by tptacek
5 years ago
Or is it that we need to “disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” as BLM’s website claims? https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
Why is this problematic for you? They're not saying children don't need caregivers, or that families are bad. They're saying the American nuclear family has downsides compared to other models, notably the extended family model common in African and Asian cultures. What makes a nuclear family "nuclear" is that it's self-contained; it's practically by definition not intergenerational, the way many effective non-American families are. It's an especially resonant point given the amount of effort American culture put into making sure black nuclear families couldn't succeed.
I feel like criticism of the American nuclear family has been pretty much fair game for decades; it's not like BLM invented that concern.
"They're saying the American nuclear family"
Not the 'American' -> 'Western'. And that's just way of making the 'family' consistent with 'Colonialism' and 'White People' because it suits their bigotry. The nuclear family is pretty closely similar around the world, outside of mostly aboriginal communities. Obviously it's somewhat different in different places, with multi-generations under the same roof.
I view this as fundamentally antagonistic - it's 'making stuff up' to find supposedly powerful and inspiring words, 'defining the enemy' ever more as 'White People'.
It defines their struggle as not one to 'finish school and gain competence' but as merely against the forces of 'White people'.
Of course by most objective measures, nuclear families are good for society.
This is the inherent problem when we mix radicalism with 'good intentions' - they end up mestastisizing the 'grain of truth' (ie racism exists) into everything (ie everything is racist).
No, pretty much none of this is true. The English/American model of isolated "nuclear" families isn't even the norm throughout Europe (see, for instance, Italy), let alone throughout the world. I decline to take the rest of the argument you're making seriously, since your foundational premise isn't even accurate. Anything else I'd say would just be restating my previous comment.
Having lived quite long enough on the Continent (in multiple continental countries) to know otherwise, this is obviously not true.
At very least English families have more in common with German families than German families do with Italian or Spanish families.
But it's moot: because family structure across civility is not fundamentally different with respect to the antagonising view of BLM.
Aside from some degree of intergenerational cohabitation, it's not that different in advanced countries.
The BLM statement with respect to family is unfounded bigotry, specifically created to concretise and define the image of their enemy.
It's very similar to Trump specifically trying to use the term 'Wuhan Virus' so as to invoke 'blame' for the virus on China. There is a 'kernel of truth' to complicity in China - in that China did some very bad things during the early phase of the pandemic, but that doesn't justify the use of this kind of language to blame them for the entirety of the problem. The language he uses here is to provoke - and to shift blame for the inadequacies of his own system, using crude language mapped onto an external group. When in doubt, use xenophobia.
BLM attacking the 'Western Family Unit' is shifting the narrative and denying any responsibility for a very foundational problem within the community - and that is >50% of Black children have little no relationship with at least one of their parents, and that rates are about double for Black families as they are for other groups [1]. Now - obviously it's a very complicated problem (i.e. incarceration etc.), but it's a lot easier to dismiss if you don't have to see it as a problem, rather, merely an oppressive measure by your villainous opponents.
The argument "The Black community has challenges at least partly due to the deep fragmentation of the family unit" can simply be dismissed and ignored with the radical, and ironically xenophobic statement: "The family unit is colonialist and racist".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_struct...
> I feel like criticism of the American nuclear family has been pretty much fair game for decades; it's not like BLM invented that concern.
Question: can you see how mixing this into BLM is a problem? I can take an unpaid day off to protest police brutality but this very quickly escalated into something completely different.
FTR, my stance on this:
- I'm not happy to support anything that wants to remove police. More training: yes. Tougher penalties for people abusing police power: yes. But removing one of most effective stabilizers in the society: no. For all its warts, the police is important.
- While I grew up in the same house as my grandparents until I was 6 or so and while my mothers parents and other relatives walked freely in and out of the house as long as they could walk I do not want to support a movement that had any opinion on how I or anyone organize our family life
- I'm kind of a socialist at heart but sadly could never vote that way as a every socialist party around here pulls in ugly dependencies, so for now and for the foreseeable future, the second best option: support anyone who wants to leave people alone.
- As this movement had started to try to tear down Churchill - not the bravest ot noblest man - but arguably one of those whose actions mattered most to reduce police brutality (Gestapo) and racism in Europe and no one is stopping them I've concluded that this movement is beyond repair. (Anyone should feel free to prove me wrong here by turning that movement around.)
Edit:
- some clarification
- also, based on the feedback so far: am I misunderstanding something (I had a misunderstanding a few days ago where someone meant nazi but used an euphemisms that I didn't catch in that context.)
> I do not want to support a movement that had any opinion on how I or anyone organize our family life
You belong to a culture and a nation which already enforces strong opinions on how its members organize our family lives. Therefore, it's a fair question to ask how effective those opinions are, and whether different opinions might be more effective.
> You belong to a culture and a nation which already enforces strong opinions on how its members organize our family lives.
Can you explain?
(My understanding is that my nation cares less about how people organize their lives than it has done for at least 900 years.
People live together 3 generations, other live as single, others as unmarried couples, married couples and everything in between.)
1 reply →
What has it to do with racism though?
What is the other extended familiy model? family clans? What would be the practical difference? Are the no disadvantages?
Exactly these political issues, which I have no strong opinion on, are randomly added to issues of police violence that makes the whole movement look very dishonest.
Where in the western world are people that tell you how to structure your family?
The American nuclear family was supported by the state, notably through housing policy; for instance, the best neighborhoods in the country have "single family zoning", which literally prohibit extended families in suburban neighborhoods. In fact: even after redlining, which persisted in many forms into our own lifetimes, many areas are still single-family zoned. These zoning ordinances are all turn-of-the-20th-century racist devices.
The movement isn't dishonest. Its critics are simply ignorant. That's not surprising; they've been kept in ignorance deliberately.
Of course better off people prefer these areas to high density housing. Even better off people might get into gated communities, which could be called extended family just as well. And this is a far worse situation.
Yes, the suburban happy family living the American dream might be a touch too idealistic, harsh building regulation might drive prices which disadvantages poor demographics and there were maybe people that used it for racist purposes. Doesn't mean everyone did. And high density housing is probably a lot more stressful even without a family apart from the most expensive options available.
4 replies →
Edits, ahh you confuse the western family as being just a non extended family.
The criticism is against all families, extended or not. The idea from Marxism is that tribalism starts in the family unit. The aim is to get the village to raise the child, not just allow the grandmother to lend a hand.
The western family includes the European models, it doesn't only contain the Protestant isolated family structure.
Your question should therefore be re written as "why does advocating for having a family to be made up of people not related to the child be seen as problematic"?