BLM nuclear family goal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes but what does the word salad of:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

in the OP actual mean in a practical sense? Is there some policy goal that could work towards this? If so, what is it?

A friend of mine, who is black, recently posted on social media about adoption, and the criticism that the Black community receives for not adopting more children in need. She said we need to realize that black women/families regularly take in children in need and care for them as one of their own, outside of the legal adoption process. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. She said so many black kids have a sibling or cousin who is not a blood relative. This is the village that they refer to. 5

Today in wapo there was an article about an 88 year old DC man whose father was born into slavery. That’s how close we are to slavery and the fact that women and children and men were sold away from their families and had to form communities to help one another.[/quotel]
So it's a sign of poverty. Why are they calling for it again?
Should we all be brought down to their level?

What's ignored these days is the black family unit was quite strong up until the 1960s and then for some reason it started falling apart and out of wedlock pregnancies soared. Keep in mind this followed the Civil Rights movement. It's one of the paradoxes that people have struggled to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean? Why does the nuclear family need to be disrupted?

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/29/black-lives-matter-plan-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-and-dismantle-cisgender-privilege-gains-support-in-corporate-america/

An excuse for the lack of responsibility.

This: it is a push back against the observation that 70-some-odd percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

These last two statements are inextricably embedded in the American psyche and are one of the pillars that support the nation's systemic racism.

Specifically, the statements refuse to acknowledge (or are purposely ignorant about) the legacy of this problem - slavery. That is from August 1619 (a year before Plymouth Rock) to December 6, 1865 black women, men, and children were forced and sold away from their families, at will. Interesting that today we are expressing so much concern about black babies being born out of wedlock when marriage among slaves was not officially recognized. Honestly, ask yourself what would be the out of wedlock percentages of any race of people who had to endure such cruelty?

To enslave a people for 246 years and then mistreat them afterwards is ruthless. But to also beat them up later for not carrying on in life the way you would expect is diabolical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes but what does the word salad of:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

in the OP actual mean in a practical sense? Is there some policy goal that could work towards this? If so, what is it?

A friend of mine, who is black, recently posted on social media about adoption, and the criticism that the Black community receives for not adopting more children in need. She said we need to realize that black women/families regularly take in children in need and care for them as one of their own, outside of the legal adoption process. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. She said so many black kids have a sibling or cousin who is not a blood relative. This is the village that they refer to.

Today in wapo there was an article about an 88 year old DC man whose father was born into slavery. That’s how close we are to slavery and the fact that women and children and men were sold away from their families and had to form communities to help one another.

I would be asking what does this have to do with the BLM demands? What exactly are they demanding regarding the nuclear family unit? Is the nuclear family unit somehow institutionally racist, which seems to be the implication of their demands because otherwise why would they be talking about it? What exactly does BLM want here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean? Why does the nuclear family need to be disrupted?

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/29/black-lives-matter-plan-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-and-dismantle-cisgender-privilege-gains-support-in-corporate-america/

An excuse for the lack of responsibility.

This: it is a push back against the observation that 70-some-odd percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

These last two statements are inextricably embedded in the American psyche and are one of the pillars that support the nation's systemic racism.

Specifically, the statements refuse to acknowledge (or are purposely ignorant about) the legacy of this problem - slavery. That is from August 1619 (a year before Plymouth Rock) to December 6, 1865 black women, men, and children were forced and sold away from their families, at will. Interesting that today we are expressing so much concern about black babies being born out of wedlock when marriage among slaves was not officially recognized. Honestly, ask yourself what would be the out of wedlock percentages of any race of people who had to endure such cruelty?

To enslave a people for 246 years and then mistreat them afterwards is ruthless. But to also beat them up later for not carrying on in life the way you would expect is diabolical.

Your post is basically doing what BLM is doing, blame everything else rather than themselves for social problems. Why are we pointing to 1619 rather than the 1960s, when it was the 1960s when out of wedlock pregnancies started soaring among black Americans? That's a hundred years after the end of the civil war. One of the great achievements with the end of slavery in 1865 was that the newfound freedom provided the freed slaves with the ability to build much more stable family units, as defined by legally recognized marriages, which they apparently did until the late 1960s. But something changed in the 1960s.

And what is the linkage from slavery days to the high out of wedlock pregnancies and high rates of single parentage in today's world?

Lest someone wants to make this a racial thing, let me be the first to also point out that both single parent families and out of wedlock pregnancies are also soaring among white Americans, especially poorer white Americans. Race is obviously clearly not a factor there.

[Anonymous]

None of you give two shits about Black families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean? Why does the nuclear family need to be disrupted?

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/29/black-lives-matter-plan-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-and-dismantle-cisgender-privilege-gains-support-in-corporate-america/

An excuse for the lack of responsibility.

This: it is a push back against the observation that 70-some-odd percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

These last two statements are inextricably embedded in the American psyche and are one of the pillars that support the nation's systemic racism.

Specifically, the statements refuse to acknowledge (or are purposely ignorant about) the legacy of this problem - slavery. That is from August 1619 (a year before Plymouth Rock) to December 6, 1865 black women, men, and children were forced and sold away from their families, at will. Interesting that today we are expressing so much concern about black babies being born out of wedlock when marriage among slaves was not officially recognized. Honestly, ask yourself what would be the out of wedlock percentages of any race of people who had to endure such cruelty?

To enslave a people for 246 years and then mistreat them afterwards is ruthless. But to also beat them up later for not carrying on in life the way you would expect is diabolical.

This is a strong, rightfully emotional statement. It does also not address why "disrupting" nuclear family "requirements" is a goal, nor does it address where there are such prescribed requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

It’s wise that they are squarely addressing one of the issues that has hampered their success in myriad ways. Data indicates single parent households tend to languish in poverty. Data correlates poverty with crime rates, poor health, subpar education, limited employment and housing opportunities, etc.

But the reality is that much of the stress and negative outcomes flow from single parenting in the black community. I don’t think these relationships and supports they promote will help unless people are living together and sharing bills and child rearing.

I think this is just another way of saying other people with more means need to support black single parents and their kids because they can't afford to do it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

Yes, this. You left out some very important words in your question. They want to disrupt the nuclear family structure requirement, not individual families.

But aren’t there benefits of this structure requirement?

Only the fact that human civilization has been built on this structure for millennia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

It’s wise that they are squarely addressing one of the issues that has hampered their success in myriad ways. Data indicates single parent households tend to languish in poverty. Data correlates poverty with crime rates, poor health, subpar education, limited employment and housing opportunities, etc.

But the reality is that much of the stress and negative outcomes flow from single parenting in the black community. I don’t think these relationships and supports they promote will help unless people are living together and sharing bills and child rearing.

I think this is just another way of saying other people with more means need to support black single parents and their kids because they can't afford to do it themselves.

Bingo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

It’s wise that they are squarely addressing one of the issues that has hampered their success in myriad ways. Data indicates single parent households tend to languish in poverty. Data correlates poverty with crime rates, poor health, subpar education, limited employment and housing opportunities, etc.

But the reality is that much of the stress and negative outcomes flow from single parenting in the black community. I don’t think these relationships and supports they promote will help unless people are living together and sharing bills and child rearing.

I think this is just another way of saying other people with more means need to support black single parents and their kids because they can't afford to do it themselves.

Bingo

Support single black parents but not other single parents?

Mildly curious. What support are we talking about here? In what form and shape? What will it entail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of you give two shits about Black families

Of course they don't. They jsut wanna take a dump on AA's to feel better about their own shitty family situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean? Why does the nuclear family need to be disrupted?

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/29/black-lives-matter-plan-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-and-dismantle-cisgender-privilege-gains-support-in-corporate-america/

An excuse for the lack of responsibility.

This: it is a push back against the observation that 70-some-odd percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

These last two statements are inextricably embedded in the American psyche and are one of the pillars that support the nation's systemic racism.

Specifically, the statements refuse to acknowledge (or are purposely ignorant about) the legacy of this problem - slavery. That is from August 1619 (a year before Plymouth Rock) to December 6, 1865 black women, men, and children were forced and sold away from their families, at will. Interesting that today we are expressing so much concern about black babies being born out of wedlock when marriage among slaves was not officially recognized. Honestly, ask yourself what would be the out of wedlock percentages of any race of people who had to endure such cruelty?

To enslave a people for 246 years and then mistreat them afterwards is ruthless. But to also beat them up later for not carrying on in life the way you would expect is diabolical.

Your post is basically doing what BLM is doing, blame everything else rather than themselves for social problems. Why are we pointing to 1619 rather than the 1960s, when it was the 1960s when out of wedlock pregnancies started soaring among black Americans? That's a hundred years after the end of the civil war. One of the great achievements with the end of slavery in 1865 was that the newfound freedom provided the freed slaves with the ability to build much more stable family units, as defined by legally recognized marriages, which they apparently did until the late 1960s. But something changed in the 1960s.

And what is the linkage from slavery days to the high out of wedlock pregnancies and high rates of single parentage in today's world?

Lest someone wants to make this a racial thing, let me be the first to also point out that both single parent families and out of wedlock pregnancies are also soaring among white Americans, especially poorer white Americans. Race is obviously clearly not a factor there.

I think your motive or agenda for posting here is not what it appears to be. And that is more transparent than you think.

I'll just say this, slavery matters. Even if we use your 1960s argument, that's only ~100 years. And God only knows what you are talking about with this "newfound freedom" slaves were granted after 1865, but ok...

Fact is, you really have beef with BLM; you don't care at all about black babies being born out of wedlock. Consider removing your mask and stating your concerns with BLM more directly, instead of parading around like you care about black babies and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean? Why does the nuclear family need to be disrupted?

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/29/black-lives-matter-plan-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-and-dismantle-cisgender-privilege-gains-support-in-corporate-america/

Many black men do not support the BLM mission statement. I've seen several pro AA athletes talk about it and also AA newscasters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

It literally says “we DISRUPT the western prescribed nuclear family...”

I read their website and it concerns me. Everyone is flying their flags and not realizing this is a Marxist group that hates America. Hopefully a more productive group focused on healing racial tensions is created. I also get the feeling that they are against heterosexual people
As well. Anyway read up before you sign on with them.

The group is not Marxist, 2 people in the group are. You may have read but you clearly didn't comprehend. You are just parroting back talking points of far right organizations, try to think for yourself for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes but what does the word salad of:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

in the OP actual mean in a practical sense? Is there some policy goal that could work towards this? If so, what is it?

A friend of mine, who is black, recently posted on social media about adoption, and the criticism that the Black community receives for not adopting more children in need. She said we need to realize that black women/families regularly take in children in need and care for them as one of their own, outside of the legal adoption process. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. She said so many black kids have a sibling or cousin who is not a blood relative. This is the village that they refer to.

Today in wapo there was an article about an 88 year old DC man whose father was born into slavery. That’s how close we are to slavery and the fact that women and children and men were sold away from their families and had to form communities to help one another.

I would be asking what does this have to do with the BLM demands? What exactly are they demanding regarding the nuclear family unit? Is the nuclear family unit somehow institutionally racist, which seems to be the implication of their demands because otherwise why would they be talking about it? What exactly does BLM want here?

It has a pro GLBT lifestyle mission statement.