My facebook feed is once again flooded with one group saying Black Lives Matter which is met with another group saying All Lives Matter, which leads to an annoying back-and-forth between the two groups with each side misunderstanding what the other says. And it gets me frustrated, because rather than actually coming to some sort of agreement, individuals on both sides instead waste their energy arguing over the words and their meaning… and it just seems to me that this misunderstanding could be avoided if we can all acknowledge that the phrase Black Lives Matter… is flawed.
One side says Black Lives Matter - when what they mean is that Black Lives ALSO Matter.
The other side hears Black Lives Matter - and what they interpret it as meaning is that ONLY Black Lives Matter.
And the two sides argue. And they go round in circles, and it is such a waste of time and energy…
So - please - for the love of God - let’s change this.
From this point on, I shall no longer use the phrase Black Lives Matter - but rather: Black Lives ALSO Matter. This removes any confusion. This makes the point much more clearly and concisely than going with the three word version which is constantly being misinterpreted and misunderstood.
Maybe if others will start doing this, we can take less time to get to the meat of the matter.
Anyway, had to get that off my chest. #BlackLivesAlsoMatter
People on the other side don’t interpret it as “Only black lives matter”, they interpret it as “Black lives matter more”. All lives matter means “All lives matter equally”.
I don’t think there are many people who don’t understand that the phrase is intended to mean that Black Lives Matter, too. All Lives Matter is a phrase used to distract from the point BLM is making. People don’t ever use ALM to protest someone being killed, which they would if they sincerely believe in their slogan and are passionate about making sure that no one is unjustly killed. It’s only used in an attempt to shut down other people’s protests.
That’s what it should have been. Language is powerful, people will take it’s simplest interpretation. It’s an exclusive statement, it will get interpreted as such.
They could have used Black Lives Also Matter or Black Lives Matter Too. But it’s not as forceful linguistically. And, by being a little threatening to a certain kind of person, Black Lives Matter has some PR benefits that boring bromides about equality lack. There’s room to criticize BLM’s messaging tactics, but it’s hard to argue that they haven’t been effective. Criminal justice and policing policy is changing for the better and relatively rapidly as these things go, and part of the reason is the success of BLM in raising these issues to the level of constant national attention.
I suspect that 80% of the people turned off by the messaging or aggressive approach wouldn’t be doing anything differently if the approach was softer. And getting the other 20% on board with softer and more accommodating language would probably have come at the cost of a lot of effectiveness that comes from controversy and the dialogue that the movement’s title has engendered.
Another thing is that, in my experience, there’s a lot of overlap between the ALM and the Blue Lives Matter groups. Somehow they manage to understand that the latter phrase doesn’t mean that the lives of non-policemen don’t matter.
It has always seemed to me that the phrase Black Lives Matter was coined to counter the unspoken and possibly even mostly unconscious thought, when black deaths at the hands of police are in the news, that “oh well, black lives don’t really matter very much,” along with “I am more concerned with deaths of (attractive and young) white people than I am with the deaths of random black people whom I don’t know.” So I have always added a word to the phrase in my head, but not the one the OP suggests. I say to myself “Black Lives Do Matter.”
And I agree that most people responding with “All Lives Matter” are largely disingenuous in their (mis)understanding of the origins of the BLM movement.
It’s easy to argue that they haven’t been effective, because they’ve had no effect, or worse a negative effect. The situation is getting worse and they are further polarizing people. Shouting loudly enough to annoy people is not being effective. I understand that’s the standard in politics now, but let’s look at what has actually worked, and it ain’t this. The issues involved have greater public presence because of the effort of the news media, not BLM. And effectiveness has to be measured in a reduction of young African American men dying at the hands of the police, not an increase. This movement requires people to chose between ‘All Lives Matter’ and ‘Black Lives Matter’, that is divisive, and it’s not winning the hearts and minds of anyone.
Jurisdictions across the country are adopting citizen review boards, body cameras, rejecting prosecutors who don’t discipline police, getting rid of municipal funding through fines, changing cash bail, and many other demands of the movement. If you don’t see it happening, it’s because you’re not paying attention. Eventually, this stuff will reduce police killings. Right now, it is rolling back the tide of mass incarceration–which is arguably the easier and more important goal of the movement.
Fortunately, these victories do not depend on winning the hearts and minds of the people who think “black lives matter” contradicts “all lives matter.”
America has a problem with law enforcement that (from my outsiders point of view) is more general than race. It could be argued that by focusing on the racial component BLM are not looking at the problem in its entirity. However it cannot be denied (but I’m sure some do deny) that the racial component is a massive part of the problem and equally it could be argued that all the major components (e.g. race relations, firearms, accountability, etc) go beyond law enforcement and that by focusing on a specific aspect BLM might hope to achieve more.
I know BLM have come under a lot of criticism from some quarters, but, and maybe I’ve missed something, I can’t see a lot that they’ve done that is wrong.
As for changing the name that rather makes a big assumption that the misunderstanding is not willful. Is there anything intrinsically wrong with with the name? IMO no. When those who ‘misunderstand’ the name have their misunderstanding pointed out to them is the mistake corrected as you would expect if it was a straightforward misunderstanding? It doesn’t seem so.
It doesn’t seem like a good idea to let a bunch of ne’er do wells who are opposed to a movement dictate its name.