The problem with saying "All Lives Matter"http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/nation/problem-saying-all-lives-matter
"What? you say. My home is being robbed! Arent you going to come and stop them?
Well, I dont know why you need to make this about your home, maam, the operator says. All houses matter.
There is a difference between something being true and something being relevant. In the above conversation with an imaginary 911 operator, what he was saying was very true. All houses do matter. But at the moment, it wasnt relevant. It wasnt even helpful. All things considered, it was downright dangerous. You had an actual crisis going on at your housethats why your house mattered. While the operator was lecturing you on how important all houses are, bandits were trying to figure out whether they could get all your stuff in one load or if theyd have to make two trips.
Its the same error people who respond to Black Lives Matter with All Lives Matter are making. Its not that what theyre saying isnt true. Its just that its unhelpful. Its an attempt to erase an actual crisis under the guise of being fair. And by continuing to use All Lives Matter to drown out the cry of Black Lives Matter, the real problems the movement is trying to address are being ignored. All Lives Matter is useless. It is destructive. It is hurtful. We need to stop saying it.
Case in point: the way the police use force in certain cases appears to be dysfunctional.
While this might in some cases be compounded by latent racism, the issue is beyond race.
And yet, it's being appropriated as 'evidence' of black oppression.
See this segment of The Young Turks about the Dylan Noble killing this week.
Where is the 'Dylan Noble Live Mattered' emotion?
That's the problem with conflating the police excessive use of force with a racial issue.
Response to Albertoo (Reply #2)
Police excessive and lethal force against blacks is just that...modern day lynching....
And I can understand, even sympathize, with that. Emotions have roots.
But what I was presenting was a more detached, analytical view of the situation.
Which I find ultimately more useful in solving problems.
Arabs have taken slaves in Europe during 1100 years (700-1800)
Are you suggesting Europeans should bear a grudge against Arabs?
And for how long?
Black lives continue to be dehumanized.
How long? Until it freaking stops, that's how long.
The statement that Black lives are systematically willfully dehumanized is excessive, and therefore not helping much the cause of racial equality.
Do you honestly believe that black people do not suffer from racial injustice and inequality?
Yes, slavery and segregation left an inheritance of socio-economic differences, and of unsavory attitudes.
I am simply denying that the rules today are willfully and systematically favoring people of this or that ethnic origin.
I'll try to summarize my points on this thread:
racial equality is the goal, and is and must remain a work in progress
but, while improvable, the current US situation is not as bad as generally portrayed, especially when compared to most countries today.
I humbly think BLM errs when it tries to systematically ascribe any and all police brutality on an institutionalized racism before the facts are in.
If you believe this, you really are living in a fantasy world, because it is the truth. Racism takes many forms, and you seem unaware of many of them.
It would help you to get an education on what is happening in this country.
I stand by it, but I am ready to change that view if you can demonstrate me wrong.
Many police forces dehumanize black suspects. Schools in urban areas, through their inadequacy, dehumanize their minority students. Blacks are dehumanized and suspected generally in many areas of society, in housing, employment, etc.
Black people are generally dehumanized through poverty that has destroyed black family structures for generations. These are not things of the past, these are things currently happening. You somehow see this as only historical, which is quite false.
I don't have time to sit and talk of this further, as I need to go to work tomorrow and go to bed now, but my frank impression of you is that you don't know much about the lives of black people currently and what they have to go through.
Perfect example of folks who don't and will never get what this is about..
would be to acknowledge that they exist.
While we all agree that excessive police force is an issue that can affect anyone, it still is disproportionally happening to black people.
Anyone can start a Dylan Nobles life mattered. Anyone can start a movement for police reform.
But that doesn't mean you should criticize, or hijack the Black Lives Matter Movement to suit you view. The movement is to draw the attention to the racial injustice, and inequality that black people face.
while your individual sentences make sense, there is a leap in quantification
We agree on different points
- excessive use of force by police can happen
- (it probably happens more to people of lower income groups)
- historically, blacks have been oppressed
Now, between a black victim of such violence and Dylan Nobles, what applies? When was the police officer out of bounds? Intentionally or not? Was he a sadist? Had he a conscious racial animus?
The problem with BLM is that it appears to automatically, systematically sacribe police use of force to an excessive use of force (before it's proven or dismissed) due to racism (before it's proven or dismissed)
It is in that automaticity that I find a counter animus, a claim that all blacks would be systematically targeted and oppressed. That broad brush claim can only feed on itself.
after petty stuff like jaywalking, or having a broken taillight, or selling CDS outside of a store, or selling a cigarette, etc., etc., etc., you have to wonder what caused the escalation.
I suspect that too many police officers have subconscious tendencies that cause them to fear black men and perceive them as a danger.
That is systemic racism. We all need to open our eyes and recognize it.
And giving "dehumanizing stares."
view a video of an escalating situation and point to the person matching their own skin color and say, "There's what he did wrong, that's what provoked the other person."
Until then, it's two people sitting down and pointing out how horrible the other person was and sullenly waiting for the sackcloth and ashes to be used long enough. Currently, one side is saying to take down the fence while digging fencepost holes. That won't work in a society built on progressive principles. At least not those typically considered liberal.
(There are "progressive principles" for just about any situation. There were progressives happily on the side of Stalin and Mugabe, so the word "progressive" by itself if fairly meaningless.)
This HAS to be a two way street, because at this point it's a giant reinforcement loop. Something happens and the people from the group of the person it happened to say, "See, we told you they were thugs." Then something happens to the other group and his group says, "Yep, we told you THEY are the thugs, that's why we act this way."
That's what happened this past week, with all parties confirming the worst ideas the other parties held about them. Not a step forward.
They make too systematic assumptions about any and all cases.
Neither case was an example of white supremacism, as judged after lengthy analysis.
And yet, BLM types cried blue murder about both cases.
Here is what I am trying to say:even if I can understand they stem from accumulated, pent-up frustration, excessive claims of racial injustice are not productive.
And the way BLM wants to systematically discern a racial animus in any dramatic incident strikes me as counterproductive.
Was there a 1% element of racism? 5%? x%? Who knows?
What is certain is that neither case is an example of white oppression of Blacks.
Zimmerman was a Latino, and Michael Brown charged a police car.
Was it after or before the first volley of shots. I know that in testimony, he got so pissed off he shed his bullets and charged the officer requiring a second volley.
I never heard bullshit like it in my life...superhuman Michael Brown.
And I'm glad to hear you like Zimmerman. It tells me about your character. You embrace that guy. He is on your side.
And yes, Brown did charge the police car.
Study supports suspicion that police are more likely to use force on blacks:
Police try to lower racial bias, but under pressure, it isn't so easy:
People killed by police in the United States, 2015:
Implicit racial bias and the police:
How can you not find it odd that a jaywalking young man wound up dead? There was a history of racial tensions between the Ferguson Police Department and the community.
The one aspect of that story that was never covered, is how the hell it escalated to that point.
And how can you not find it odd that Zimmerman took it upon himself to stalk a black teenager. That's just creepy.
Zimmerman was a Latino. In what was it an example of institutionalized racism?
Michael Brown was not just jaywalking: he robbed a shop, then charged the police car.
Had he been black, white or a martian, I can understand why the police officer shot.
Zimmerman stalked Trayvon for the sole reason that Trayvon was black.
The Officer did not know Michael Brown robbed a store at the time he approached him for jaywalking.
The police are professionally trained to defuse situations. Something clearly went wrong in the interactions between the officer and Michael Brown. And that has yet to be reported on.
with your "the police are professionally trained..." statement. I am not a cop, but I work in mental health and am aware of police vs. the mentally ill situations, many of which end badly. Some police are trained to defuse situations. All police are trained to CONTROL a situation. Defusing and controlling things are two totally different games. I have witnessed police defuse a situation quite well. I have also witnessed police try to control a situation with the effect of worsening it. Trying to control a situation using police tactics with the mentally ill rarely works, defusion does. My experience is that most police use control as their go to. See Eric Garner.
people with mental health issues. I don't disagree with that at all. Some police departments are trying to change that.
you are on the wrong fucking site.
And you think agreeing with that should define who is on DU, is that it?
Sadly, everyone does. It's how you learn and act from it that is the key to solving it.
Zimmerman was an over-eager would-be-cop boy scout.
He tried to stalk T Martin to play cop. Martin tried to beat him up for that.
Zimmerman pulled a gun to protect himself from a beating.
In retrospect, I honestly do not think a racial motivation was central to the case.
The officials made the admission to ABC News after revealing that Zimmerman can be heard on a recording of one of the 911 calls made on the night of the shooting saying what some people think sounds like f***ing coons under his breath.
because Trayvon was black. He assumed Trayvon was up to no good. He made that assumption because Trayvon was black. He shot Trayvon, because Trayvon was black.
If Zimmerman did not have a subconscious fear of black people, this event never would have happened.
Normal people would have been like, "Hey, how ya doing?" Not stalking and following them.
Zimmerman wanted to play cop and robbers: he wanted to stalk people he found suspect. We're not in his head to know how often he did that and how he picked his 'suspects'
T Martin could have fit Zimmerman's criteria for suspects because he made gang signs, or because of the way he dressed or talked to his friends or his skin color.
We just do not know.
A Latino shooting a Black during a scuffle is not a proof of white supremacism.
Simple. Not controversial.
Thanks for that!
You're all over the place. I make only one simple and modest contention in this thread:
I am merely suggesting not all police brutality should be scored as proof of racism.
Some police brutality can be caused by racism, not all.
And not all use of force by police is brutality.
It's mere logic. I'm a bit surprised being taken to task over it.
So no answer to #83? Doesn't fit your tiny narrative, so I understand why you are so frustrated. It is okay, you are limited to the material you can type.
Kids watch TV. This is not evidence of being in a gang.
Oh wait - he's flipping someone off in that photo. I am not sure it's even a copy of a gang sign or just "the bird."
When was Zimmerman triggered to play cop? On which type of people and for which reason?
There is no way to know. Attitude? Dress code? You and I do not know.
So it's a stretch to claim we know Zimmerman stalked T Martin out of racism.
Now we have one Latino with a racist attitude towards Blacks.
Now, what? What conclusion?
Did you miss the part where I said it's about the whole criminal justice system? When I use the word "racism" I'm talking more about systems and structures than individuals.
Zimmerman is a bigot. I'm not talking about him specifically. The concept and history of the neighborhood watch program, and how it's been implemented are racist though.
Again, I am not saying racism doesn't exist.
Just that Zimmerman's act was not a prime example of it.
I'm certain that if it was me walking through his neighborhood, (I'm a white female) he would not have stalked me. Well I hope he wouldn't anyway. The dude is a freaking weirdo.
You are a white female. But we do not know that Zimmerman liked to play cop about black males only.
Let's suppose you are a white female in torn clothes, with a punk rock blue hair crest, black nail polish and eyeliner, spiked bracelets and a small bottle of gin protruding from one pocket of a leather jacket.
Would our wannabe cop have stalked you if he thought you were out to rob from a condo's parking lot? Possibly.
The only part of the scenario which would have been more unlikely would have been the scuffle, hence the fatal shot.
I was hoping that your concern was sincere, and that perhaps you were naïve, but now it's clear that you are deliberately obtuse.
Zimmerman would not have stalked me. He stalked Trayvon because he viewed him as a threat. He viewed Trayvon as a threat because Trayvon was black. He shot Trayvon because Trayvon was black. Zimmerman had an irrational fear of black people that caused his stalking and killing.
Trayvon was simply walking back to the condo he was staying in. He was just a teen. He's dead because of Zimmerman's subconscious prejudice.
Trayvon did nothing wrong. All this bullshit to make him out to deserve his dying so pissed me off, but nothing made me feel pure hate more than when the defense attorney for Zimmerman close to Trayvon's mother said something like, isn't it true that Trayvon was responsible for his own death.
My God she held her composure something like I could never have done. That trial will stick with me forever.
And it was a huge wakeup call for many of us.
Nearly every mom in the country felt Sybrina's pain. I'm in awe of her strength, courage, determination, and love, and I stand by her, and with her, in her fight to make sure no other mom has to experience such pain, such grief, such senselessness.
If you know Zimmerman's motivations so precisely, I salute you:
you possess an ability to read hearts and minds with a certainty greater than mine.
Especially confused little fucks like Zimmerman that only identifies with his Latino heritage when it's convenient for him to do so. Other than that he prefers to assimilate into the white, klan loving crowd.
I think anyone that is dilusional enough to believe Zimmerman didn't execute Martin because of his black skin belongs on a hate site with like minded folks.
you appear to know that Zimmerman 'assimilated into a white, klan loving crowd'?
And people who are just unsure as to Zimmerman's motivations belong to hate websites?
It must be relaxing to see the world in such a binary way..
Just like you wanting to arm everyone, you are wrong about that and wrong about this.
... similar things
Last edited Mon Jul 11, 2016, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)
cop who threatened a 5-year-old black girl's life on Facebook?
. . . Rodney Lee Wilson, a rookie Overland Park Police officer, . . . threatened LaNaydra Williams and her child on Facebook, with no obvious connection between the two.
. . . Wilson threatened Williams five-year-old daughter, India, on Friday.
Williams, who lives in Texas, told Fox 4 that just before midnight, she saw a comment on a picture of her daughter that had been public on her Facebook for more than two years.
It was from Officer Wilson and it read: Well see how much her life matters soon better be careful leaving your info in the open where she can be found. Hold her close tonight, itll be the last time <emphasis added>.
Can you even imagine such a threat being posted by a police officer on the FB page of a white person?
I already wrote on this thread that there was a history of racism that left scars, and that there is some racism rampant among some in the population.
However, my point was that what I perceive to be BLM's attitude, i.e. to cry racism over each and every case where a Black is shot before any facts are in, is not helping produce a more racially appeased society.
Case in point: why vehemently assert Michael Brown as a victim of institutionalized racism when it appears to be doubtful it was the case? I can understand the pent-up frustration over the fact total racial equality hasn't been reached, but my point is that it distracts from the cause to make excessive claims (even if I understand they reflect the frustration)
The US -believe it or not- is one of the least racist countries on earth.
Not saying that there are not millions of hillbilly racists in the US, just saying stats show that they are far less as a % of the population than in most countries.
Washington Post: A fascinating map of the worlds most and least racially tolerant countries
racism is built into every system and structure in the US. Right now, we are talking about how it is built into our criminal justice system.
It is not limited to whom people will accept as neighbors. Also, even the most racism people seem to be able to exceptionalize select people of color and accept them as friends and neighbors.
1- true, my chart is about one question only. But the study was a long list of questions, the result of which being that the US is among the countries with the most humanist values.
Unsurprisingly, very poor or very traditional countries (Muslim or Black Africa countries) had much more tribalistic values.
To me, this statement sounds weird. But I'm listening: show me how racism is built in our criminal justice system (and not just a de facto bias against lower socio economic groups who will drink or steal more)
Because there's lots written on it, but here is a starting place: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html
"racism is built into every system and structure in the US. .. it is built into our criminal justice system."
The "war on drugs" has been a terrible, inefficient waste. And it has hit blacks and latinos harder because of self reproducing biases.
From that, it doesn't follow that racism is built our criminal justice system.
When and why police forces were formed and that kind of thing. Again, you should google because there is a lot of information.
I say racism is not built in our criminal justice system, in the sense that the laws and police enforcement official training are built to not be biased.
I think you say it is built in the psyche of (too) many police enforcement officials.
I could agree with that, but then again, I must insist that such racism occurs at a lower prevalence rate than in most countries worldwide.
In short, I'm trying to say the system is sound, and the racial equality situation, while it should carry on being improved, is not abysmal.
People like you who think yourselves are making good sense, good common sense with reason and logic, are incapable of ever making sense.
You have a block in your mind. Now I understand you read a lot and pull in information that backs your claims, your mind is closed like a trap, and that cannot function in the real world, like John Roberts.
but I promise to you I try as often as I can.
Besides, your John Roberts comparison was too flattering for me.
Politics aside (he's a mild Republican, not a Scalia), Roberts has an impressive mind.
BLM exists because of the way black people are treated by police right now, not decades ago.
Again, the only point I am trying to make is that BLM hurts its own cause when they reflexively ascribe any police brutality to racism.
This is not to say that all BLM does or says is wrong, just that some of its members are overzealous (and, for a small minority of them, biased)
counter the need for black lives matter or to counter the idea that various forms of racism (personal, institutional, systemic) result in rather different treatment for African Americans at the hands of police.
I even agree with the main BLM contention that blacks suffer more police unfairness than whites. I thought I had made this clear.
However, I stick to my guns on the modest point I have been trying to make here, i.e. that I disagree with BLM when they try to reflexively call any and all police violence on blacks racist.
I would have believed it was common sense to say that not all police violence is caused by racism, this being said without denying racism does exist.
But I'm just being pedantic. The difference is, obviously, that white people weren't lynched based on melanin levels.
A bit more common in the SW, where lynchings were often dubbed "necktie parties." A disproportionate number still involved blacks, but not quite so disproportionate.
But there were whites that were lynched. Whenever the community believed that their version of justice wasn't being implemented and had the guts to take the person from law enforcement, it happened.
Note that the Tulsa riots didn't involve a lynching but a thwarted lynching. The guy accused of rape or sexual assault was protected by the bad, evil cops from the whites that wanted to nab him, and later "mysteriously" showed up miles away from Tulsa, safe and sound. Part of the reason for that protection was a general tightening of procedures after a lynching nearby in the previous year--the cops were under orders not to allow another one. (The previous year's lynching victim was white. You probably didn't recall that.)
We tend not to recall things that don't fit the narrative we've built.
About persons of any race being excluded from any rallies/marches/meetings.
I really just don't understand why all these people think they should be able to name someone else's protest, or tell them how to run it. Ridiculous.
The Black Lives Matter name really seems to bother some. I think they should keep it.
This type of response shows why the BLM movement IS needed. Ignoring the role that race plays in all of this, and in other aspects of society as well, IS THE POINT.
some helpful soul will be along shortly to inform you that white people (or males) are being killed by the police, too.
ETA: Damn, if my Cap lock hadn't been on, I would have got in before that poster.)
to make excuses for the killing of black people by cops or to explain why they find it offensive to hear that black lives matter..
It hides the overt and covert racism of the violence to black bodies that is pervasive in our society. It plays with statistics and ignores reality. It's the ultimate comforting slogan of people who fear discomfort, and to confront racism, discomfort is a requirement, not an option.
that the problem black people face is, among other things, getting shot for little to no provocation by the people who officially are sworn to and in fact paid by them protect them.
the problem that white people face is having their precious little sensibilities offended by not clearly being included in the sentiment "black lives matter".
"hey, what about us, our lives matter too!"
"no shit, but you're not getting shot the way we are, are you?"
moreover, any solution that addresses the issues of concern embedded in the phrase "black lives matter" will *also* help white lives. what are people thinking, that the police will say, well, if we can't shoot black people for no reason we'll just have to start shooting white people for no reason instead??
bottom line, the objection to the lack of white inclusion in the phrase "black lives matter" is petty to the point of trivial and can only be taken as an effort to draw attention away from the very serious problems facing black people on a daily basis.
oh, and it's hypocritical as well. the right-wingers, who constantly laugh at the liberals and their kum-bah-ya shtick are suddenly demanding an all-inclusive kum-bah-ya phrase instead of "black lives matter".
They don't really think "all lives matter." Not only do black lives not matter to them, neither do brown lives, female lives, the lives of poor people and the disabled... Only wealthy white men and a few token women and people of color matter to them. As someone whose life was ruined by members of their ilk, I know my life doesn't matter to them, and I'm white. If our lives matter so much, how come you assholes want to deny us affordable healthcare, decent jobs with decent wages and working conditions, the ability to make our own reproductive choices, affordable places to live, safe food, clean air and water... You're full of shit. It's all lip service.
the Conservative, Christian, Patriot militia member (Oregon) calling for his fellow conservatives to come shoot (kill) police, they run away when they cannot show many (any?) conservatives proclaiming "Blue Lives Matter".
Apparently it's ok with our conservatives to kill police when it is conservatives encouraging/requesting it.
Starts about 10:40 on the timeline
I found this rather interesting. And true. You can shed that "blue" skin when you want. Not that easy for black folk.
What do you think?
I think there is a lot of truth to it. Policing is indeed a profession and not something you have at birth.
Is it different from the people explaining their position here? Is there an official position? I need to catch up on this issue. Who is authorized to speak for the BLM movement? I hear opposing points of view. At first, the phrase "all lives matter" was vehemently opposed because it detracted from what the BLM was trying to say. Is that still true? Could someone explain?
All lives matter except to police so black lives matter in that case. I forget how to do the sarcasm tag.
If not racism, I wonder why? Instead of white cops in black neighborhoods, perhaps they should have black cops patrol those areas? I think the militarization of the police forces has caused gangs and criminal activity to increase, instead of decrease. Cops have set perceptions of the neighborhoods they patrol, it seems to me. Perhaps it is their perceptions that create the violence against black citizens? Perhaps it is their perception of "criminal activity" that is at odds with the neighborhoods they police? To be honest, I don't know...
: sarcasm :
Anyone still clinging to the "All Lives Matter" bullshit is being intentionally obtuse and insensitive. They know what they're doing. They can't respond the way they want to to "Black Lives Matter"- which is no they don't. So this is their diversion.
Yes, Black Lives Matter. And we're focusing on that because our society has not been behaving as if they did.
A good society would demand that these killings and injustices stop immediately. The only thing society asks of its citizens is to obey the law and to not hurt anyone. People should feel secure in their environments. A good society would hold sacred people's right to privacy and property. A good society would not need cops at all...
I am talking more the institutions- the Police, The Judicial System. Our society is not acting like Black Lives Matter when cops routinely kill unarmed black citizens with absolutely no accountability.
Yet I also think that some are extremely naïve, and it's the naïve ones that I'm trying to reach.
the BLM spokesman was on the air saying that yes, black lives matter, but all lives matter. And that included policemen's.
It was a matter of emphasis, not exclusion. And when another's life is at issue, his life matters, too. The guy was reasonable.
And not obtuse, nor insensitive. Imagine, somebody calling the BLM organizer insensitive and trying to "divert" from his own goals.
(You should check out the disproportionality of black versus white deaths-by-cop in the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s. To help with that focus.)
Someone named their protest Black Lives Matter. It's their protest. That means they can call it whatever they want.
While it is true that all lives matter, this particular protest has been named Black Lives Matter. This is America, they are American, they can call their protest whatever they want. They do not have to re-name their protest to make some uptight people feel better.
The other stuff like ALM and Blue lives matter are made to dilute the BLM movement. They are made to dismiss the BLM movement and to create a situation in which it is 2 sides against one and other. It it another example of conquer and divide. You cannot back the police if you back BLM.
can call their group anything they want. The point that some people are trying to make is that it is counterproductive to call it that. It is counterproductive because it raises the hackles of the very people they are trying to influence. The response to this is normally some form of "We don't care if some white people are uncomfortable with the name of our group."
OK, it's BLM's prerogative to care or not care what people think in response to their group name. They don't have to change their name because it makes some people uptight. But it remains that if you are trying to change things, you can't piss off, or make feel uncomfortable or uptight, the people you are trying to change. People don't change because you tell them to. People don't change if you scream at them loud enough.
The title of the group is not the problem. The group is named (Black Lives Matter) BLM because they believe society undervalues black lives. Thus, it is pointless to say all lives matter as a response to BLM.