Anonymous wrote:You can’t criticize African-American families for not having “traditional” nuclear families when we disproportionately sent black men to prison for the flimsiest of crimes and outright lies by law enforcement.

Unequal justice system and racist enforcement of laws destroyed black families. That’s not their fault. That’s “our” fault - that is, this is a problem created and sustained by white people.

How are my fellow white, wealthy Americans going to solve this?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marxist goal. If you read their complete statement people are called "comrades".

Like you give a shit. They’re all n-words to you.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

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 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?

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:Marxist goal. If you read their complete statement people are called "comrades".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the nuclear family a Western idea?

In many parts of the world nuclear+extended family is the norm.

I don’t know of any part where single parenting is the norm and preferred family type unit. It’s generally looked on as a hardship worldwide.

-
Raised by a single mother

I think pretty much in all cultures and societies globally the basic family structure is always the two parents with children. The difference is that more traditional societies also have extended larger families of aunts and uncles and cousins forming an extended support network. This was also much more common in the US till probably the 50s. Actually, it still is among may people. The weakening of the extended family network seems to go hand in hand with rapid industralization and modernization because people become more global and move around much more often. To use as an example, my mother grew up in your standard whitebread American family and through the 1960s she lived in a neighborhood along with her grandparents, several sets of aunts and uncles and cousins and second cousins and their families. Nowadays, everyone is scattered across the country.

I lived in the Middle East for years and was always impressed by the extremely strong extended family network among Middle Easterners (note the emphasis on family, which is not akin to a collection of strangers or complicated partnerships among adults forming a "village" for the children) and I do think many people in the US would benefit from having that kind of extended family network as there's a lot of loneliness in the modern West. But the BLM attack on the nuclear family is clearly meant to try to shift blame away from personal responsibility and to pretend that the high out of wedlock pregnancy rates isn't part of the problem especially for poorer African Americans. While I initially had sympathy for BLM at the onset, it's pretty clear the movement has morphed to blaming all cultural, economic and social problems on everything else to avoid accepting any element of personal responsibility as part of the progress needed.

But why? It does not need to be that way. Women often stay with abusive men because the structure supports it. That is not better or healthier for children. Yet, that is what is expected so that is what is done. There needs to be an acceptance that often people need to divorce.

Also, single people should not feel pressured into getting married and marrying the wrong person because having a child on their own is wrong and the cultural structure of the family is betrayed when a woman/man has a child without a spouse.

You are posing straw man questions. The old saying that blood is thicker than water is often true enough. Even my own experience with my family, which does not have the strong extended network of cousins and relatives, reminds me of how true this is. I see my neighbor's kids far more often than I see my own blood relatives, but when push comes to shove, family is family.

It is not akin to saying people can't have very good and valued friends who become closer than other family members (which is very common) but without the blood ties of family all other forms of relationships are much more structurally weaker. I have several friends from my "hippy" days in my young 20s who embraced the "open lifestyle" even with children and I've maintained contact over the years and what's telling is how unstable those kinds of arrangements are. Adults and partners are constantly coming and going. It's unquestionably far less permanent and stable in terms of adult figures and relationships than the conventional family unit. And the kids, I must admit, rarely turn out as stable either.