Kaepernick not standing for National Anthem

[Spider-Dan]

I mean, Black Lives Matter isn't exactly new.  If you've went the last 3 years and you still think "all lives matter" is a meaningful and relevant response, you're simply choosing to ignore their message.  It's useless to retort that all lives matter when there are, repeatedly, no legal recriminations for killing black people.

I love MLK. In fact ... at this moment I can't think of a single think he did that I disagree with.

You're not the first anti-BLM person I've heard say that.  Are you aware that MLK was arrested 30 times for civil disobedience?  Do you think BLM should follow MLK's example in this matter?

The whitewashing of MLK's legacy is pervasive.  The idea that MLK's movement would somehow be at odds with BLM is just bizarre.  In MLK's last march before he was assassinated, protesters were holding these signs:



In today's era, there would surely be an outcry that those signs are racist.  Adult males of all races are men, right?

[Tenshot13]

Spider, you're reaching man.

Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up a seat to a white person.
MLK was arrested for sit-ins at white only restaurants.  A lot different than being arrested for, rioting as an example.

MLK did not advocate violence in any way.
Malcolm X did.
BLM does.

That's the difference.

[Phishfan]

"Black Lives Matter" has an implicit "too" at the end of it.

Saying "All Lives Matter" is being dismissive of the problem.

I understand the implied "too" but don't you think the use of "All lives matter" can be dismissed as well as being dismissive? If our goal is unity, shouldn't there be a unifying message?

[Spider-Dan]

MLK was arrested for sit-ins at white only restaurants.  A lot different than being arrested for, rioting as an example.

MLK was arrested for breaking the law.  It's easy for us to sit around 50 years later and say that those laws were obviously unjust, but many people back then said the same thing that people are saying about BLM today: they are criminals and troublemakers.

MLK put it best:

"Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.” … Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

MLK did not advocate violence in any way.
Malcolm X did.
BLM does.

Please show me where Black Lives Matter, as a movement, advocates violence as the solution.
The existence of individuals who promote violence does not mean the entire movement does, any more than the existence of Malcolm X meant that the 1960s civil rights movement was about advocating violence.

[Spider-Dan]

I understand the implied "too" but don't you think the use of "All lives matter" can be dismissed as well as being dismissive? If our goal is unity, shouldn't there be a unifying message?

"All lives matter" is exclusively used as a retort to people who are protesting the killing of blacks with little to no consequences.  At this point, the term is as loaded as "states' rights" or "separate but equal"; it has a very specific meaning, which is, "Black people should stop complaining about being shot."

[Dave Gray]

I understand the implied "too" but don't you think the use of "All lives matter" can be dismissed as well as being dismissive? If our goal is unity, shouldn't there be a unifying message?

I don't think so, no.  "All Lives Matter" would be unoffensive and genuine if it were an isolated slogan.  But in this case, it's specifically a response to "black lives matter", a cry from a community with a legitimate concern that they are treated unequally.

I believe that when people say "All Lives Matter" that they don't mean to be dismissive and offensive.  Of COURSE all lives matter.  But to say that in response dismisses the problem.

Let's say that you're trying to help people in Darfur get clean water.  You are passionate and educated about the problem.  And you start a campaign to aid the problem.  "Darfur needs water."  And then people respond with "Everyone needs water."  Yes....yes they do, but people in Darfur are still without and your campaign has been marginalized.

[Spider-Dan]

That's exactly right, Dave.  It's like going to a breast cancer fundraiser and saying "No, all cancer matters"... and then doing nothing to defeat breast cancer or any other sort of cancer.

The people saying "All lives matter" are not following up with "Let's work to stop police from killing unarmed people of all races."  They are following up with "What about black-on-black crime?" and "You're being racist."

To make it crystal clear:
The meaning of the phrase "black lives matter" is that there is a grave injustice being committed against black people by the police.
The meaning of the phrase "all lives matter" is not that this grave injustice is being committed against all races by the police;
the meaning of "all lives matter" is that there is no such grave injustice being committed.

[Phishfan]

Please show me where Black Lives Matter, as a movement, advocates violence as the solution.
The existence of individuals who promote violence does not mean the entire movement does, any more than the existence of Malcolm X meant that the 1960s civil rights movement was about advocating violence.

Here's the rub on that though, there is no national BLM structure or hierarchy. It is very hard to show anything at an entire movement level when there is no structure to it. I agree that it is a bad apple scenario, but without any national structure putting out a unified message then some people are going to attribute those bad apples to the organization as a whole.

[Phishfan]

"All lives matter" is exclusively used as a retort to people who are protesting the killing of blacks with little to no consequences.  At this point, the term is as loaded as "states' rights" or "separate but equal"; it has a very specific meaning, which is, "Black people should stop complaining about being shot."

In many instances it is. I want to make sure that I am not being misunderstood, as I believe many people on both sides of these movements are. I'm just saying rather than having implied messages of unity, if the goal is unity the message should be inclusive.

[Spider-Dan]

Here's the rub on that though, there is no national BLM structure or hierarchy. It is very hard to show anything at an entire movement level when there is no structure to it.

The civil rights movement of the 1960s had even less structure and hierarchy, so I'm not convinced that's relevant.
Furthermore, if we're going to say that we can't ascribe a position to an unorganized movement (a statement I don't necessarily disagree with), then we definitely can't say that said unorganized movement "advocates violence."

I'm just saying rather than having implied messages of unity, if the goal is unity the message should be inclusive.

I doubt that "unity" is the goal (although that's certainly a welcome side-effect if it happens).  I believe the goal is to end the unjust killing of black people by police.

Again, if "all lives matter" was being used by Hispanic, Arab, or even white people that also wanted the police to stop killing unarmed people of every race, I'd support them, too!  It's not like BLM is in favor of the police killing unarmed Latinos or unarmed white people.  But the people who say "all lives matter" invariably believe that police killing unarmed people - of any race - is not a serious problem, and that BLM (and other protesters) should pipe down.

[Sunstroke]

I am so very glad that I have Spider-Dan around to tell me what I'm thinking when I say something...

 

[Spider-Dan]

I am certainly receptive to other explanations as to what is meant when "all lives matter" is given as a response to complaints of racially-targeted police brutality.

I suppose it could be intended as a completely unrelated comment - like saying, "Abolish world hunger," a noteworthy goal in and of itself - but the context implies otherwise.

[pondwater]

"Black Lives Matter" has an implicit "too" at the end of it.

Saying "All Lives Matter" is being dismissive of the problem.

And what's that problem again?

[CF DolFan]

"All lives matter" is exclusively used as a retort to people who are protesting the killing of blacks with little to no consequences.  At this point, the term is as loaded as "states' rights" or "separate but equal"; it has a very specific meaning, which is, "Black people should stop complaining about being shot."

Hahahaha .... I can't respond to much tonight but there was no way I could go away and not post Jerry Rice's comment from today.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not at all surprised to see Jerry Rice say that.  Let's just say that on the scale of courage on social issues, with Muhammad Ali as a 10 and Michael "Republicans buy sneakers too" Jordan as a 1, Jerry Rice is pretty close to the latter.  Jerry Rice telling other black people to settle down is not exactly a startling development.