All Streets Matter ?????

[ED_girl123]

Not sure if this has been brought up previously, but I am seeing an increasing number of posters (east dulwich grove- Dulwich village end...looking at you) with several signs saying "all streets matter". I cannot begin to express how disappointing this is to see, and so many supporting it! One house I passed had 5 posters in their windows!!

For those who are unsure of why this is offensive, imagine a "remember your reusable carrier bags" campaign, with the tagline "lest we forget".

Whether you agree with Black Lives Matter or not, I think we can all recognise that it was born from real-life events where real human lives were lost. The phrase All Lives Matter was created to discredit that. To compare it to streets being closed (particularly in a bid to provide cleaner air) is entirely inappropriate, inconsiderate, and shows ED/Dulwich to be a very ugly and unsafe environment, especially for people of colour.

If you have a poster up, please even consider just crossing out that one line on the poster. It costs us nothing to be considerate of others, but it costs others if we choose not to.

[Spartacus]

I'm very confused here, and it's a genuine confusion which I need clarity on.

Are you objecting to the use of any three word phrase that has "matters" at the end or do you really feel that people will confuse it for the BLM slogan ?

Is it due to the use of "all" at the beginning, which was a genuine issue when it was used with lives matter? Because it's seen to take away from the important issues that are affecting black lives in a bad way, and which need to be addressed

The analogy you use isn't quite the same as if someone used "lest we forget" for carrier bags then it's a direct use of the phrase , but in this case are you saying that using "bags you forget" (just keeping the last word the same) would be an issue?.

I'm not trying to stir things but confused by why exactly a three word phrase ending in matter is creating a storm , but also want clarity on what expressions you think are and aren't acceptable in the support of equal air quality for all ?

[legalalien]

I saw a statement on Twitter acknowledging offence had been caused and saying they were changing the posters (see attached).

The tone deafness or otherwise is a separate debate (fine to have obvs) from the issue of road closures. I do think, though, that as a general principle it?s good to allow people space to reconsider and adjust their behaviour, rather than continuing the politics of division with everyone finding more and more reasons to demonise those who disagree with them on a particular issue (not to detract from your original concern, OP - I?m not suggesting you were doing that). We ought to be able to separate out issues we are debating from other issues without turning everything into ?us? and ?them?.

(ETA I say this because Twitter is full of ?inappropriate posters therefore bad people therefore bad views on everything? talk. ED-girl didn?t say anything like that so just adding for context)

Otherwise how can anyone learn/ change / develop their views?

[Lowlander]

Back to the OP, I'm glad I'm not the only one to have been put off by the phrase. It's trivialising the slogan of a serious movement for their own agenda. For that alone I wouldn't support their cause.

[ED_girl123]

@Spartacus

I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that "all streets matter" was no way inspired by the phrase "black lives matter"or the associated "all lives matter", and is just coincidental use of three words. It's clearly a play on the phrase. I am not claiming that people will confuse the two, but I do think its disrespectful to hijack a phrase that is in the favour of saving human lives (or dismissing them), to explain an inconvenience of having to take a different driving route. It's been one of the most prominent issues in the news over the past year, so I think to claim it's unrelated is untrue.

I hear your point about my analogy (though I think it is a little pedantic). Phrases/slogans like these which relate to current events are pretty rare, which only serves my point that its unlikely a coincidence. Perhaps if someone used "reclaim our roads" (for this same road blockage issue) in light of Sarah Everard's death when women were saying "reclaim our streets", it would too be considered disrespectful.

It undermines the original cause, and attempts to level the issues by using same phrasing. And I don't think you'd hear anyone saying "are we not allowed to use the word reclaim anymore?? Its only three words!"

[legalalien]

Lowlander you?ve kind of made my point. I find it easy to disagree with people on some things and agree with them others, taking a position on things on an issue by issue basis. Everything seems so tribal these days, kind of ?people like me have x set of views?, rather than a more pick and mix approach.

[northernmonkey]

And yet - stopping short of encouraging people to take down their posters that had appropriated a phrase aligned to the 'all lives matter' phrasing of the far right in response to the BLM matter movement.

The poster was at the most generous interpretation 'ill judged' from those designing and circulating it, but also questions the judgement of all those displaying it especially now the offensive nature has been made clear.

What is interesting is that certain businesses - eg Fashion Conscience on Grove Vale, rather than removing and waiting for the next poster, still have the poster up. They're core members of the Dulwich Alliance and certainly able to coordinate with each other but are choosing not to do anything about this.

[ED_girl123]

Legalalien I completely agree that it shouldn't be us and them, hence why I offered that maybe people could consider crossing that one line out. That being said, if people feel hurt or offended, they are fully within their right to step away and withdraw support. I don't think Lowlander proved your point in that sense. There is freedom of speech, freedom of actions, but that does not mean freedom from consequences.

[ab29]

I have no problem with the slogan 'All streets matter' - they do. Some people are trying to create problems where there are none.

[ED_girl123]

ab29, I am afraid that way of thinking can lead to trouble..just because the problem doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not valid. That same thinking could be used to excuse a lot of things we now commonly regard as wrong.

If someone says "ow that hurts!" when you press their bruise in error, you stop. Not because it hurts your finger, but because it hurts them. It costs nothing to be kind! (or coincidentally, cross out three words on a poster)

ab29 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have no problem with the slogan 'All streets

> matter' - they do. Some people are trying to

> create problems where there are none.

[legalalien]

Thanks. I had a poster up briefly, then read it properly / heard and realised some people were offended, so have taken it down pending a new poster. I think your crossing out suggestion was measured/ sensible and in fact the crossing out and displaying sends a message in itself (If I can find the poster in the recycling I might do that). My response was in light of the fact that OneDulwich have apologised and are getting new / replacement posters done.

I get what you?re saying about my point re Lowlander but I do think sometimes we should give people a bit of a chance before putting them in a bucket and making a blanket judgment about the validity of their views on all things. I might be over-extrapolating! And 100% that everyone should be free to make their own judgment.

ED_girl123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Legalalien I completely agree that it shouldn't be

> us and them, hence why I offered that maybe people

> could consider crossing that one line out. That

> being said, if people feel hurt or offended, they

> are fully within their right to step away and

> withdraw support. I don't think Lowlander proved

> your point in that sense. There is freedom of

> speech, freedom of actions, but that does not mean

> freedom from consequences.

[ab29]

ED girl I disagree - I see this as a smokescreen. So-called LTNs and its consequences its a problem here, not the slogan. Why have I not seen you saying 'Oh, poor people living on Lordship Lane, how awful it must be for them yo live with this additional air pollution and noise'?

[ED_girl123]

ab29- Hahaha, I am sorry to burst your point, but I *am* one of the people who has had increased pollution right in front of their home as a result of the road blockages. Things in life are rarely exclusively true- the phrase can be offensive, and the blockages can be causing issues/disruption. In fact, my original post tried to serve both, by saying keep the poster, just cross out the words.

"A smokescreen" suggests its an unworthy/false distraction, to that I would say the response from many who have been offended by it suggests otherwise...

[mfcjoe]

ab29 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ED girl I disagree - I see this as a smokescreen.

> So-called LTNs and its consequences its a problem

> here, not the slogan. Why have I not seen you

> saying 'Oh, poor people living on Lordship Lane,

> how awful it must be for them yo live with this

> additional air pollution and noise'?

I agree, i'll be voting Tory next year.

[ab29]

I am from a minority group and as I said I do not feel offended by the slogan . I would rather see a real action on the b****y LTNs instead of a futile discussions about slogans.

[legalalien]

?Things in life are rarely exclusively true- the phrase can be offensive, and the blockages can be causing issues/disruption.?

Exactly.

[Lowlander]

ab29 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am from a minority group and as I said I do not

> feel offended by the slogan . I would rather see a

> real action on the b****y LTNs instead of a futile

> discussions about slogans.

Would it not just be simpler to acknowledge that the phrase is offensive to some, and alienating potential allies? If you just remove it you?ll get more supporters and can concentrate on the issues at hand rather than wasting it on futile discussion?

[smooch]

this is all detracting from the initial problem - that some streets are, for whatever reason, deemed more important than others - particularly roads that do not have large houses with big front gardens on them - roads that are now utterly choked with pollution due to stationary traffic. I find the nitpicking over the wording - which in no way can be linked to the BLM cause (which in my mind was a valid and serious campaign) can no one use the word 'matter' now?

I think ab29 sums it up well.

[KidKruger]

I suppose if you keep your eyes and ears constantly looking for offence, you will find it anywhere.

FFS - Give white supremacists primacy over our language, why don?t you.

[ED_girl123]

smooch, I believe this has all been discussed if you scroll up a little. Black lives matter/all lives matter (the associated far right backlash to blm) was undoubtedly a factor in this even sounding like it had a "good ring to it". I don't really see how it's detracting if I am honest...no such thing as bad press hey when it comes to publicity...

[Rockets]

Genuine question: was there a backlash when Labour MP Rupa Huq used the phrase during her LTN presentation to a government minister in Westminster a few weeks ago which, in their apology, the Dulwich Alliance has cited as their inspiration for the use of the phrase? You can do a google search for Rupa Huq LTNs and see the speech where she says it.

Whether the Dulwich Alliance were right or wrong to use the phrase is a debate that could rage forever but the important thing is that they have apologised and changed the poster - its the type of contrition and openness to correct a wrong that some of us would love to see from the council in relation to LTNs!

[tiddles]

Good point rockets

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whether the Dulwich Alliance were right or wrong

> to use the phrase is a debate that could rage

> forever

Could it? They've admitted it was wrong, and claimed they're going to scrap it.

Seems odd that Dulwich Alliance would explicitly need to be told that appropriating a slogan of white supremacists is a bad idea.

[womanofdulwich]

Zorya 1995, thats just not necessary.Read all the threads before you cast your judgement please.

[northernmonkey]

Zorya - read the thread. No one has objected to people having posters expressing concern about road changes in their windows. Many people have pointed out that the slogan chosen was inappropriate. A fact that has even been acknowledged by the organisation printing and distributing the leaflets.

I did see that there is a new poster out today and that Fashion Conscience has updated theirs (sure others will have too, I just walked past theirs as its on a main road). Pleased to see that the new poster isn't offensive which was the focus of this discussion.