My first assumption is that when someone says ‘all lives matter’ is that they mean it. It’s very easy to determine if they actually do. The point of saying ‘Black lives matter’ is not crystal clear, unless you are clairvoyant you have no more idea what the person who says it means than someone who says ‘All lives matter’. The basic premise discussed here is that anyone who says ‘All lives matter’ is a racist. We are supposed to be fighting people who use that kind of judgement.
It’s interesting that All Lives Matter includes the sentiment that Black Lives Matter, but saying that Black Lives Matter – or that White Lives Matter! – doesn’t say anything either way about other lives.
So it’s of course compatible with saying that All Lives Matter, and anyone who gives people the benefit of the doubt can read it that way – but it’s also compatible with another sentiment entirely, which is why the natural response would be a clarification: “in that all lives matter, right?”
“, too!” would fix the phrase and everyone would agree, but then the BLM movement would lose the attention it is getting, and the leaders wouldn’t like that.
If the next sentence after “all lives matter” was “and it so happens that black lives are especially at risk so we need to do something about it.” However the next line usually seems to be “why do you hate the police?”
I am white. I am not scared about getting stopped by the police, even when I was younger, even when I had long hair and got stopped all the time. And I never had to instruct my kids how to stay safe if stopped by the police, the way black parents seem to have to.
So, saying “all lives matter” misses the point because mine does already.
How about this - if I say poor people deserve a living wage so they don’t starve, you respond “everyone deserves a living wage.” True, but it totally misses the point. BLM is directing attention to where attention needs to be directed. ALM means nothing in terms of what we should do.
Sure. And complaining about “Black Lives Matter” as a slogan is the “wrong action”.
Unless I’m missing something, saying “everyone deserves a living wage” would mean something in terms of what we should do, wouldn’t it? I mean, yeah, question of emphasis and all – but it’d technically mean agreeing with your specific proposal, right?
Well you are discriminating against dead people and zombies! Perhaps vampires as well?
But the majority of people who use the “All Lives Matter” slogan are, in many respects, just like the people who refuse to pass the food; they are saying it not as a true expression of the ideals of justice, but to minimize or distract from or justify an ongoing injustice.
Throwing “All Lives Matter” in the face of the BLM movement, as many people are doing, is essentially saying, “Your focus on the issue of race in talking about law enforcement and criminal justice is irrelevant and misguided.”
If i truly believe that a person saying “All Lives Matter” is aware of and interested in addressing some of the racial inequities pointed out by the BLM movement, then that’s one thing. But, as Voyager rightly notes, too often the phrase “All Lives Matter” is immediately followed by assertions that attempt to minimize racial problems and excuse the incidents in which law enforcement exercises unreasonable force against African Americans.
That might work, but then the very issue that they’re emphasizing—racial inequity—is elided from the slogan. Slogans, by their very nature, tend to oversimplify things, and the general assumption is that intelligent people will look beyond the slogan and ask exactly what it is that the movement has to say.
Given a choice between:
Black Lives Matter
just as much as other lives.
and
All Lives Matter
and we need to stop behaving as though black lives don’t.
I think the first is just as accurate, and does a better job of articulating the specific issue at the heart of this problem.
In a world where words stood alone as mere icons, shorn of any historical or social or political context, one might honestly and reasonably say that All Lives Matter is just a simple statement of fact, and that Black Lives Matter is not as inclusive. But the people who make these arguments are—deliberately or otherwise—ignoring the historical and social and political context, because it is not convenient to their narrative.
Black Lives Matter is a response to a specific set of circumstances where racial disparities stand at the center and deserve emphasis. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that, and who claims not to understand the point that the BLM movement is trying to make, is disingenuous or completely clueless.
Saying All Lives Matter as a general statement is fine, but when it’s thrown into the face of BLM people, as it so often has been recently, as a part of an effort to criticize or ridicule or minimize BLM’s focus on racial inequities, then it’s racist.
That’s a good question. This isn’t exactly new news. I wonder where the OP has been for the last year or so that he hasn’t previously stumbled on the discussions of this issue that have been doing the rounds on this board, on the 24-hour news programs, and on just about every internet news and commentary site.
What will the next thread be? Perhaps, “Apparently this guy named Trump is running for President.”
Well, take that all the way down; imagine someone who merely says that All Lives Matter. He’s not “complaining about ‘Black Lives Matter’ as a slogan”, so he’s not running afoul of what you just said; what about someone who complains about that guy’s innocuous use of the All Lives Matter slogan? Is that complaint the “wrong action” likewise?
When Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn… Blessed are the peacemakers… Blessed are the merciful,” did someone stand up and say, “Hey, blessed is everyone?”
I saw a posting today that said, saying “All Lives Matter” is like telling people complaining about the War on Christmas, “All Holidays Matter”.
If he’s talking to me, then I’ll attempt to explain it, rather than complain. If he still insists the slogan should be changed, then he’s wrong.
I think Jesus did. Something about how it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy – but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust; for if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t follow the pronouns there.
When you say “then he’s wrong”, do you mean the guy who says All Lives Matter, or do you mean the guy who complains about it? Because, in the scenario you just quoted, the guy who says All Lives Matter isn’t insisting that some other slogan should be changed; he’s merely saying that All Lives Matter.
Right. “Why do you hate the police?” in response to “and it so happens that black lives are especially at risk so we need to do something about it” tells you something about the person point of view. Even saying “All lives matter” after all that does also. This issue could have been avoided if the slogan was “Black lives matter too”. It’s not, so if this slogan is going to mean anything then there has to be a consistent message that about black lives not being treated as if they mattered, not accusations of racism and falling into a semantics trap. This is not a game, say “Black lives matter” and explain the context if that’s not understood.
they (I’m not black, kind of pale with spots so I can’t say I’m one of them) are objecting to being treated like subhumans, and stating “all lives matter” is a kind of a slap in the face since it obviously isn’t true.
It isn’t racist to say it just because racists do say it.
But then – by the same logic – stating that Black Lives Matter would likewise be a slap in the face, since I just now got told that that “obviously isn’t true.” So why object to one, but not the other?
“Support the Troops!”
“We should support everyone!”