Martin Luther King and soup protests
- Thread starter matticus
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Squire
MLK wouldn't have approved of chucking paint over works of art because he would have known that it would be a poor or/and black person on minimum wage cleaning it up. Ditto pouring milk over the floor of Waitrose.
Also, the US civil rights movement had clearly defined aims - like an end to segregation - which were all possible to achieve, and fairly quickly, without major disruption to the economy, unlike the rather nebulous demand to 'Stop using oil'.
I think you are mistaken if you imagine Rosa Parks would have been pouring her own sh*t over a statue of Sir Tom.
Also, the US civil rights movement had clearly defined aims - like an end to segregation - which were all possible to achieve, and fairly quickly, without major disruption to the economy, unlike the rather nebulous demand to 'Stop using oil'.
I think you are mistaken if you imagine Rosa Parks would have been pouring her own sh*t over a statue of Sir Tom.
Last edited:
newfhouse
pleb
mudsticks
Squire
I'd probs not go down the route of the soup chuckers, but I did my time in the trees, protesting road expansion in the 90's..
And have been an activist, one way or another ever since.
Including my choice of work, and political engagement.
And yet we're still 'Having to protest this sh1t'
Because vested interest pushes back, really strongly, even though they know the damage they're doing.
The forms of protest change, the causes , not so much..
I can totally understand, indeed I share, the frustration of these young people at the inertia around climate change.
Which is also a social justice issue.
Fairness, equity, feeding and housing people as a priority, instead of these ideas of endless extraction and capitalistic growth for massive profits for the few.
I dunno, but I suspect if Van Gogh was around he'd probs be siding with the kids, in their fight for the future of a livable planet.
Where sunflowers, and all other forms of nature could thrive..
Not be nearly so bothered about an overpriced painting, he probs say he could always do another one..
The effects of climate change are already being felt in the global south, increasing inequality and deprivation there as well.
An issue that MLK would have comprehended very well.
This is a fight for climate justice for the poorest, and most disadvantaged in the world.
It's literally a fight for the survival of future generations, and those who have polluted least, will suffer the most.
It's massively unjust.
Minimum wage cleaners, and food workers, and farmers even, aren't going to be paid any less - or any more because someone has chucked soup or milk around.
Whatever, they're cleaning, the fact that they're not paid very much isn't the fault of the 'Just Stop Oil' protestors.
And have been an activist, one way or another ever since.
Including my choice of work, and political engagement.
And yet we're still 'Having to protest this sh1t'
Because vested interest pushes back, really strongly, even though they know the damage they're doing.
The forms of protest change, the causes , not so much..
I can totally understand, indeed I share, the frustration of these young people at the inertia around climate change.
Which is also a social justice issue.
Fairness, equity, feeding and housing people as a priority, instead of these ideas of endless extraction and capitalistic growth for massive profits for the few.
I dunno, but I suspect if Van Gogh was around he'd probs be siding with the kids, in their fight for the future of a livable planet.
Where sunflowers, and all other forms of nature could thrive..
Not be nearly so bothered about an overpriced painting, he probs say he could always do another one..
The effects of climate change are already being felt in the global south, increasing inequality and deprivation there as well.
An issue that MLK would have comprehended very well.
This is a fight for climate justice for the poorest, and most disadvantaged in the world.
It's literally a fight for the survival of future generations, and those who have polluted least, will suffer the most.
It's massively unjust.
Minimum wage cleaners, and food workers, and farmers even, aren't going to be paid any less - or any more because someone has chucked soup or milk around.
Whatever, they're cleaning, the fact that they're not paid very much isn't the fault of the 'Just Stop Oil' protestors.
AuroraSaab
Squire
'End all new oil and gas' seems a bit nebulous to me. It's like saying 'Stop War'. Stopping production of all and any oil products in the UK immediately isn't an achievable aim without wrecking the economy. And the people who will suffer most from that are the poor. When the roads are blocked with protestors the better off workers will be working from home with a laptop in their spare bedroom. Those who work in factories, hospitality, cleaning, catering, and all the other low paid manual jobs, will be the ones sitting on buses for hours.
One of the reasons the civil rights movement was successful was that the public increasingly recognised the unfairness that black Americans were unable to effect change because they were prevented from voting. We have that right and are able to vote for eco friendly policies if we wish. Chucking milk round Waitrose is in no way comparable to striving to have society recognise the humanity of black people by occupying shops that wouldn't serve them.
Unlike black Americans, we can start and support political parties to bring about the changes we want. If only there were a party whose priority was green issues...
Edit: There's really no point speculating what someone who died 130 years ago would think about something of which he had no experience whatsoever. Assuming Van Gogh would be chucking milk around shops to stop oil production because he enjoyed nature is like speculating on his view on the efficacy of cochlea implants based on him having sliced his ear off.
As for 'Well they're paid to be cleaners', I'll remember that when I get annoyed about people dropping litter, or leaving a mess in McDonald's, or pissing on toilet seats.
One of the reasons the civil rights movement was successful was that the public increasingly recognised the unfairness that black Americans were unable to effect change because they were prevented from voting. We have that right and are able to vote for eco friendly policies if we wish. Chucking milk round Waitrose is in no way comparable to striving to have society recognise the humanity of black people by occupying shops that wouldn't serve them.
Unlike black Americans, we can start and support political parties to bring about the changes we want. If only there were a party whose priority was green issues...
Edit: There's really no point speculating what someone who died 130 years ago would think about something of which he had no experience whatsoever. Assuming Van Gogh would be chucking milk around shops to stop oil production because he enjoyed nature is like speculating on his view on the efficacy of cochlea implants based on him having sliced his ear off.
As for 'Well they're paid to be cleaners', I'll remember that when I get annoyed about people dropping litter, or leaving a mess in McDonald's, or pissing on toilet seats.
Last edited:
newfhouse
pleb
That is not their demand. “New” refers to the new licences that are being issued for North Sea exploration and extraction as well as fracking.
mudsticks
Squire
Yup the Green Party are a great organisation, who have good policies.
Unfortunately under our fptp system they get to wield very little power, or make many changes.
We're fast running out of time to tackle climate change, this won't wait til we've 'fixed' our political system.
A just transition to affordable renewables, greening spaces in towns and cities, and energy saving measures, such as improving insulation on our cr@ppy housing stock would benefit the poorest in our communities.
People are dropping litter, or pissing on toilet seats to protest against oil corporations? I don't think so..
AuroraSaab
Squire
Doesn't matter why they are doing it, if they are doing it deliberately it's making somebody's life a bit harder. Still, as you say they aren't paid any less of their £8 an hour for cleaning off a bucket of human excrement than they are an accidentally dropped gum wrapper, so it's just the same really.
fozy tornip
fozympotent
There'll be tools for the job, a hose or pressure cleaner maybe, and a nice tabard; they won't be asked to clean that poop off Major Tom with their tongues.
fozy tornip
fozympotent
Apropos Parks and King, they were vilified in their time, murdered even in the case of King, by defenders of the status quo. Modes of protest may change; the push back from reactionaries is the drear constant.
mudsticks
Squire
I think it really does matter why they're doing it .
It's not 'the same'.
Low (and no) wage people are struggling to survive in this country and abroad .
The reasons for that are politically driven, deliberately caused injustice in our economic system, driven by many factors, greed and exploitation mainly
Not because of someone dropping gum wrappers..
I'm not condoning littering here, but saying that people shouldn't protest because of a sudden solidarity with low waged workers is spurious to say the least.
It's the lowest waged who are, and will be most affected by climate change.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Phew. That's alright then. They get a nice tabard? It's a wonder they don't clean deliberately thrown sh*t for free with job perks like that.
And the appropriation of the black civil rights movement in order to justify UK white kids chucking around milk and sh*t is also drearily predictable.
fozy tornip
fozympotent
While appropriating the black civil rights movement to castigate UK white kids chucking around milk and sh*t is daringly to extemporise, I suppose.
